KIPRIS Plus MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the conversion behavior but lacks details on potential limitations, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly explain the tool's function and usage without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple conversion with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on output format or behavioral traits, which are needed for full contextual understanding.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'intent' with examples. The description adds minimal value by restating '자연어 검색 의도' but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: converting natural language search intent into KIPRIS search queries. It specifies the input ('자연어 검색 의도') and output ('KIPRIS 검색식'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like kipris_free_search or kipris_search beyond mentioning the latter as the next step.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: for converting natural language intent into a structured query, and it explicitly states to pass the result to kipris_search for actual searching. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or alternatives among siblings like kipris_free_search.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.