KIPRIS Plus MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API used and that parameters are sent using '공식 파라미터명' (official parameter names), but doesn't describe what the tool returns, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a search tool with 15 parameters, this is insufficient.

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 concise with two sentences that convey the core functionality and technical implementation. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently mentions the API usage without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complex search tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what results are returned, their format, or how to interpret them. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent lacks crucial information about the tool's behavior and output.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 15 parameters thoroughly with examples and defaults. The description adds minimal value by mentioning that parameters correspond to '공식 파라미터명' (official parameter names) like 'inventionTitle, applicant, inventors', but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema.

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 performs 'KIPRIS Plus 항목별 검색' (item-by-item search) and specifies it searches by individual fields like invention title, applicant, inventor, IPC, and dates. It mentions using the 'getAdvancedSearch API' which provides technical context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kipris_free_search' or 'kipris_search'.

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 alternatives like 'kipris_free_search' or 'kipris_search'. It mentions the API used ('getAdvancedSearch API') but doesn't explain what makes this tool distinct from its siblings or when it's the appropriate choice.

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