Chosun MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource or function (e.g., calendar vs. course vs. graduation). Even related tools like graduation_diagnosis and graduation_summary have clearly different purposes: raw data vs. anonymized summary. No ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the 'chosun_<domain>_<specific>' pattern consistently, using snake_case. The prefix provides clear server identity, and the names are descriptive and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
13 tools cover a comprehensive set of portal functions without being bloated. Each tool serves a specific need, and the count feels appropriate for a university portal MCP.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers most core informational needs (calendar, courses, syllabus, graduation, notices, timetable, etc.). Missing are write/action tools (e.g., logout, submit changes) and possibly grade lookup, but the set is reasonable for a read-heavy portal interface.
Average 3.2/5 across 13 of 13 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Search', implying read-only, but fails to clarify side effects, result limits, caching, or error handling. For a tool with 15 parameters and no output schema, 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short sentence), front-loaded, and without fluff. However, for a complex tool, it sacrifices essential context, making it too minimal to earn a higher score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return format, pagination, default behaviors, and failure modes. It falls short, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 87% (high), so the schema explains most parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but since the schema is already rich, a score of 3 (baseline) is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Search undergraduate course offerings', specifying the verb 'Search' and resource 'course offerings'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like chosun_course_syllabus (syllabus for a specific course) and chosun_timetable (personal schedule) by focusing on available offerings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 chosun_course_syllabus or chosun_graduation_diagnosis. It lacks context for typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what is immediately obvious. With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it lacks information on side effects (e.g., read-only guarantee), error handling, or what happens if checks fail. It only states 'run checks' and 'return report', leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits important details like what specifically is checked or the report format. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the parameter count (4), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not describe the report's content, format, or how to interpret results. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively, especially since it combines multiple underlying checks.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the parameter descriptions already present in the input schema. The description's reference to 'same checks as MCP verification log' provides context but not parameter-level detail. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'run' and the resource 'portal and academic-system checks' with an outcome 'return a compact report'. It also references the MCP verification log, providing context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this composite tool from the individual sibling tools (e.g., chosun_timetable, chosun_graduation_diagnosis), though the composite nature is implied.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. The description implies it is for running the verification log checks, but without telling the agent when a combined report is preferred over individual checks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read,' indicating a safe, read-only operation. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (maxPages), whether contact inclusion or raw data inclusion affects output, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal but not contradictory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. It is concise and easy to parse, but it could include a brief parameter overview without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 12 parameters (8 required) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, how parameters relate to the syllabus report, or what to expect from optional flags like includeContact or includeViewData. The description is only slightly helpful for a simple read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no explanation for the 12 parameters, despite only 3 having descriptions in the schema (25% coverage). The required parameters (year, semester, collegeCode, etc.) are not elaborated, leaving the agent without meaning beyond their names. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool reads a course syllabus for a specific course offering, linking it to the sibling tool chosun_course_offerings. The verb 'Read' and resource 'course syllabus report' are specific, and the mention of the sibling differentiates it. However, it could further clarify that it retrieves the syllabus for a single offering identified by the required parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used after obtaining a course offering from chosun_course_offerings, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit, not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should explicitly state that the tool is read-only and has no side effects. While 'Read' implies read-only behavior, it does not confirm safety or disclose any behavioral traits like whether the data is cached or if network access is required. The single-sentence description lacks transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as mentioning the parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the timetable widget returns (e.g., schedule items, dates), nor does it provide context relative to sibling tools. The absence of output schema places a burden on the description to describe the return, which it fails to do.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers the single parameter (weekChange) completely, including default, constraints, and description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is sufficient for a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('fixed timetable widget'), and the tool name and context differentiate it from sibling tools like chosun_academic_calendar and chosun_server_time. However, it does not specify what the timetable contains or how it differs from a dynamic timetable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For instance, it does not explain when to use chosun_timetable instead of chosun_course_offerings or chosun_graduation_summary. The agent would need to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must carry the burden. Only states 'read', implying read-only, but no mention of authentication, data format, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no redundancy. Efficient but could be expanded with minimal additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. Does not specify what data is returned or any format, leaving agent without key info.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has 0 parameters (schema empty), baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info but none needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (read) and resource (graduation self-diagnosis data) but does not differentiate from sibling tool 'chosun_graduation_summary' which may overlap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'chosun_graduation_summary'. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description implies a side effect ('Log in') but does not clarify if this is a read-only operation or modifies state. No annotations provided, so description should clarify mutability, but it is ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, concise. No wasted words, but front-loading could be improved with a clearer subject-verb structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks explanation of what 'report the current MCP session status' means as output. No output schema or description of return value, leaving agent uncertain about what information is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in input schema. Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 4 applies as no additional parameter information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states the tool logs in and reports session status, specifying the portal and MCP session. It is clear about the resource and action, but ambiguous whether it actually performs login or just queries status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like chosun_server_time or chosun_verification_report. No context about prerequisites or typical usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only indicates a read operation but fails to specify authentication requirements, side effects, or what happens if the portal is unavailable. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is extremely concise and fits the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no parameters or output schema, the description lacks detail about the returned data format, error conditions, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that retrieves a 'widget', more context about its structure or update frequency would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not need to add further parameter meaning; a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'fixed notice widget from the Chosun University portal', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with other data types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chosun_unread_messages or other portal tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or suggested use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries the burden but only states 'Read', implying read-only behavior without detailing caching, response size, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no waste. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., specifying default behavior explicitly).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks return value details and behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema's date format and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Read' and resource 'academic calendar widget' with a specific date range format. It distinguishes from sibling tools like chosun_notices and chosun_timetable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or context for use, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives minimal behavioral information. It does not disclose whether the read is cached, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. For an unannotated tool, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately concise for a simple read tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no parameters, the description is minimal but still missing details like return format (integer? object?) and source of messages. Could be more complete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and the description adequately clarifies that it reads a count. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no extra confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Read the unread portal message count', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like chosun_notices, but could be more precise about what 'portal messages' are.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chosun_notices or chosun_verification_report. The description does not provide context on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'without exposing secrets' but does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, any potential side effects, or response structure. This is insufficient for a tool that may involve configuration checks.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool, the description explains the output's purpose (reporting enablement and configuration status) but does not specify output format (e.g., boolean, text). Still, it is mostly complete for a status check.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning about what the report covers (status of tools and credentials), which is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool reports whether CLC/e-Class tools are enabled and whether separate credentials are configured, without exposing secrets. This verb+resource specification is distinct from sibling tools like chosun_oj_config_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not provide context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does 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 the privacy-preserving behavior ('without exposing student identifiers') but does not mention other behavioral traits such as read-only nature, aggregation method, or any side effects. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single concise sentence that communicates the tool's purpose and key constraint without any extraneous words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, but it lacks information about the content of the summary (e.g., counts, completion status) and the return format. Given no output schema, more detail on what the summary looks like would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the single parameter. The tool description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'summarize' and resource 'graduation self-diagnosis data', and adds the key constraint 'without exposing student identifiers'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chosun_graduation_diagnosis, which likely provides detailed data with identifiers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for obtaining summary data while preserving privacy, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like chosun_graduation_diagnosis. No direct comparison or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool reports status without revealing secrets, which is important for security. No mention of dependencies or side effects, but for a simple read-only status check, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with core action and key constraint, no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies what is reported (enabled status, configured credentials) and a critical boundary (no secrets). Could mention authentication requirement, but not essential.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline is 4 for no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it reports whether OJ tools are enabled and credentials configured, without exposing secrets. Verb is 'Report', resource is 'OJ tools/credentials'. Does not differentiate from siblings like chosun_clc_config_status, but the name and context imply a config check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like chosun_session_status or other config tools. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only states 'Read' with no info on behavior like timezone, latency, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words, perfectly concise for a simple read operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a parameterless tool, but lacks details on return format, timezone, or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters and full schema coverage; description adds meaning by naming the action and resource, sufficient for this empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Read' and specific resource 'Chosun University portal server time'. Distinguishes from siblings like academic calendar or course offerings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage for checking server time, but no explicit when-to-use or contrasts with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ChosunMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/andyjusa/ChosunMCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/andyjusa/ChosunMCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![ChosunMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/andyjusa/ChosunMCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/andyjusa/ChosunMCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/andyjusa/ChosunMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server