Expand a top-level KDC code into its full set of detailed subject codes. Provide a main category digit (0-9) to retrieve the specific subcategory list.
세부주제 코드를 조회합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kdc | Yes | 대주제분류코드 (0=총류, 1=철학, 2=종교, 3=사회과학, 4=자연과학, 5=기술과학, 6=예술, 7=언어, 8=문학, 9=역사) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.7Does 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. '조회합니다' implies a read-only query, but it does not describe output format, result granularity, ordering, or any other behavioral characteristics.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it is too minimal to be considered excellent.
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 and no annotations, the description should explain what the query returns and any relevant limitations. It only restates the action, leaving the agent without information about the tool's result shape or selection criteria.
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 kdc parameter already includes detailed mappings for codes 0-9. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 '세부주제 코드를 조회합니다' states a clear verb and resource: it retrieves detailed subject codes. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_subject_codes or search_detailed_kdc_codes, so it falls short of a 5.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_subject_codes or search_detailed_kdc_codes. An agent must infer the appropriate context solely from the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.