Retrieve original text from a specific location in a Korean public notice document using its hash and path, providing cited evidence for requirement changes.
동일한 해시의 문서에서 위치에 해당하는 원문을 확인합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | MCP_DATA_DIR 기준 상대 파일 경로 | |
| sha256 | Yes | ||
| locator | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds some behavioral context by indicating that the tool returns/confirms the original text at a location within a hashed document, but it does not disclose behaviors like missing-location handling, partial matches, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key constraint (same hash) and the purpose (check original text at a location), making it concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what 'locator' looks like, what the tool returns exactly, or how path and sha256 work together. Since there is no output schema to rely on, the description should carry more of the return-value and parameter-usage burden.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%: only 'path' is described, while 'sha256' and 'locator' have no semantic description in the schema. The description implies that 'sha256' is the hash and 'locator' is the location, but it leaves the locator format ambiguous and does not clarify the relationship between 'path' and 'sha256'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a specific action (확인/verify) and resource (원문/original text) within a clearly scoped context: a document identified by the same hash and a given location. This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like read_notice or compare_notices, though the verb '확인' is somewhat less specific than 'retrieve' or 'get'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The use case is implicitly clear: use this tool when you need the original text at a particular location in a document matched by hash. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as read_notice or extract_requirements, and no exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.