Log work journals and maintenance inspection records into Notion, capturing site, date, work type, tasks performed, and customer requests for searchable history.
업무 일지 및 정기점검 수행 기록을 노션 업무일지 DB에 등록합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | 업무 제목 | |
| summary | No | 작업 요약 | |
| site_name | No | 대상 사이트/고객사명 | |
| work_date | No | 작업 일자 (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| work_type | No | 작업 구분 (정기점검, 긴급지원, 회의 등) | |
| tasks_performed | No | 수행한 작업 항목 리스트 | |
| customer_requests | No | 고객사 요청/특이사항 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the write target (Notion work-log DB), but says nothing about whether the write is idempotent, what happens to duplicate dates/titles, whether it fails on missing fields, or what the caller gets back.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and destination with zero filler. Nothing in it is wasted.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers destination and record type but omits any note on required vs optional fields, error behavior, or result. The rich schema compensates for parameters, leaving the description minimally adequate.
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 every one of the 7 parameters is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond naming the record types that can be logged.
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 states a specific verb (등록/register) and resource (업무 일지 및 정기점검 수행 기록), plus the destination system (노션 업무일지 DB). It is clear enough to separate from add_maintenance_site and add_troubleshooting, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus add_troubleshooting, add_maintenance_site, or list_work_logs. Inclusion criteria are only implied by the tool name and the resource nouns in the sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.