Lists GPSS database codes, search field codes, and output field codes so users can build correct Taiwan patent queries and interpret returned results.
列出 GPSS 資料庫代碼、檢索欄位代碼與輸出欄位代碼。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses which three code families are returned, which is real behavioral content, but says nothing about read-only nature, whether the codes are exhaustive/cached, or any access constraints. For a zero-parameter listing tool this is acceptable but thin.
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 front-loaded sentence naming the verb and all returned categories with zero filler. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 an output schema present, the return shape need not be explained, and the description already summarizes the three code categories returned. For a trivial zero-param listing tool this is nearly complete; only the reason to call it (feeding codes into other gpss_* tools) is unstated.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description's enumeration of the three code categories aligns with the output rather than inputs, adding no parametric complexity.
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 verb (列出/list) and three concrete resources: GPSS 資料庫代碼, 檢索欄位代碼, 輸出欄位代碼. An agent can tell this is a reference/lookup tool rather than a search or retrieval tool like gpss_search or gpss_get, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to obtain valid code values before using gpss_search or gpss_build_url, but the description never states that relationship or any precondition. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.