Get the file path for an inspection sheet Excel template, auto-generating it when missing.
검수 시트 엑셀 템플릿 파일 경로를 반환합니다. 템플릿이 없으면 자동 생성합니다.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_qa_template"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals the important side effect: if the template does not exist, it will be automatically created. This is a key behavioral trait beyond a simple read. It does not elaborate on permissions or return format, but for a simple tool, this is sufficient.
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?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action ('returns the file path') and then a conditional side effect. Every word adds value with no redundancy or irrelevant details.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers the essential behavior: it returns a path and self-heals by creating the template if missing. This is complete for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool 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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. It adds context by explaining the tool's fallback behavior, which is more than the empty schema provides.
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 the tool's function: it returns the file path of the QA sheet Excel template. It also notes that it auto-creates the template if missing, adding specific resource and behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create' or 'register' operations.
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 description implies the use case: when you need the QA template path, it provides it, and handles missing templates by creating them. While no explicit alternatives are mentioned, the tool's purpose is simple and there is no competing sibling for retrieving a template path. It provides adequate context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.