Reads Korean public notices (TXT/MD/HWPX/HWP) to extract text and tables with position hashes, supporting cross-year comparison of application requirements and required documents. Excludes PDF.
공고문(TXT/MD/HWPX/HWP) 텍스트와 표를 원문 위치·해시와 함께 읽습니다. PDF 제외.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | MCP_DATA_DIR 기준 상대 파일 경로 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing what gets returned (text and tables with original position and hash) and the PDF exclusion, which is meaningful behavioral context. It doesn't detail error behavior for unsupported files, but annotations carry the safety burden.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the core action, then packs in formats, output characteristics, and the key exclusion with zero wasted words. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter read tool with strong safety annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is read, which formats are supported, what the return contains, and what is excluded. The only notable gaps are error handling for unsupported files and the absence of an output schema, but the description compensates well for the missing output schema by describing return content.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by constraining what the single path parameter should point to — a notice file among TXT/MD/HWPX/HWP formats — and by signaling that PDF paths are invalid. This narrows the parameter's semantic range beyond the schema's generic 'relative file path' description.
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 uses a specific verb ('reads') tied to a concrete resource (announcement notices) and specifies supported formats (TXT/MD/HWPX/HWP), the output shape (text/tables with position and hash), and an explicit exclusion (PDF). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like extract_requirements and compare_notices based on the reading action alone.
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 description implies scope through the supported format list and the explicit 'PDF 제외' (excludes PDF), which tells an agent when not to use it. However, it never names alternatives (extract_requirements, compare_notices, get_evidence) or states when to prefer this tool over them, so routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.