Retrieve service information about the Dongguk rule MCP server, including version, feature scope, campus search limits, and input guidance.
동국 규정 MCP 버전·공통/내부 기능 범위·캠퍼스 검색 한계·입력 안내를 확인합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | 도구 실행 성공 여부 | |
| data | No | 성공 시 구조화 결과 | |
| tool | Yes | 실행한 도구 이름 | |
| error | No | 실패 시 구조화 오류 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only operation ('확인합니다' - check), consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It describes what the tool provides without ambiguity.
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 concise sentence covers the tool's function without redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 tool with no parameters and simple informational output, the description adequately covers the scope. It could mention return format, but the provided information is sufficient for basic use.
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?
No parameters are defined, so the dimension is trivially satisfied. The description indicates that no input is needed, which is consistent with the empty parameter 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 that the tool checks Dongguk regulation MCP version, common/internal function scope, campus search limitations, and input guidance, giving a specific purpose.
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?
It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, and does not mention any prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.