Check required input keys before pre-validating Korean tax return PDFs. Returns each key's meaning, unit, and required status for corporate, VAT, or income tax.
신고서 사전검토 입력스키마. 언제: return_precheck·영어로 된 신고서 PDF 도구 입력 전에 어떤 키를 넣어야 하는지 확인할 때. 입력: tax=법인|부가|소득. 결과: 각 입력키의 의미·단위·필수 여부를 목록으로 반환한다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tax | Yes | 사전검토 세목('법인'|'부가'|'소득') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return contract ('각 입력키의 의미·단위·필수 여부를 목록으로 반환'). It does not explicitly state that the call is side-effect-free, but for a schema-introspection tool this is minor.
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?
Three tight clauses labeled 언제/입력/결과 make the when, the input, and the output scannable with zero filler. Everything is front-loaded and each phrase 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?
With no output schema, the description must explain return values, which it does (list of meaning, unit, required-ness per key). For a one-parameter introspection tool this is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.
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% and the single enum parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates 'tax=법인|부가|소득', adding no unit, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific resource (신고서 사전검토 입력스키마) and its function, and explicitly names the sibling tools it supports (return_precheck and the English-PDF return tool). An agent can distinguish it from the dozens of tax-calculation siblings without opening a schema.
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 '언제' clause gives an explicit precondition: use it before invoking return_precheck or the English tax-return PDF tool to discover which keys are required. This is a concrete when-to-use statement tied directly to named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.