KIPRIS Plus MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the search scope but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (since no output schema exists). For a search tool with 4 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's function and scope. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating scope from action).

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., read-only status, output format), usage guidelines relative to siblings, and full parameter context. For a search tool in a suite with multiple similar tools, this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema. It mentions '키워드를 입력하면' (if you input a keyword), which aligns with the 'keyword' parameter, but doesn't explain the other parameters (numOfRows, pageNo, sortSpec). With 75% schema description coverage (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), the baseline is 3, as the schema does most of the work, but the description doesn't compensate for the remaining gap.

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: 'KIPRIS Plus 자유 검색' (free search) that searches across '발명명칭·요약·청구범위 전체' (invention name, abstract, and claims). It specifies the verb (search) and resource (patent documents), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kipris_search' or 'kipris_item_search', which likely have different search scopes or methods.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., kipris_search, kipris_item_search). It mentions the search scope (invention name, abstract, claims) but doesn't specify alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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