Search full text of course announcements and retrieve the publication date for each matching result.
공지 전체 본문에서 검색하고 각 결과의 게시일도 함께 반환한다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| course_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-style search and that results include a publication date, but it does not mention auth needs, course scoping behavior, or what happens when no results match.
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?
One compact sentence that front-loads the core action and result detail with no filler. Every word 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?
The output schema covers return values, so the extra note about posting dates is a bonus. However, the description remains incomplete around optional course_id semantics and when to use this tool versus list_notices, leaving the agent to infer those details.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning for query by clarifying that search targets the full notice body, but it does not explain the optional course_id parameter or how it filters results.
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?
Description states a specific action (search across full notice text) and a concrete output detail (returns each result's posting date). It clearly distinguishes from sibling list_notices by focusing on full-body search rather than listing.
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 the tool is for full-text searching of notices, which distinguishes it from listing or deadline-oriented siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_notices or mention any prerequisites such as an active login.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.