Retrieve newly arrived books for any South Korean public library using its six-digit library code and optional year-month filter. Find which titles a library recently acquired.
도서관별 신착도서를 조회합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| libCode | Yes | 도서관코드 - search_library_codes 도구로 검색하세요 | |
| searchDt | No | 검색일자 (YYYY-MM 형식) |
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 disclosure burden. It reveals little beyond the query action itself, without clarifying return shape, ordering, date semantics, or any conversational nuance. The word '조회' weakly implies a read operation, but nothing else is disclosed.
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 filler or repetition. It is efficient, though it leans toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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, an agent lacks key details such as what the returned object/list represents and how '신착도서' is scoped or ordered. The tool is simple (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage), but the meager description leaves important calling context absent.
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%: libCode is described as a library code to be retrieved via search_library_codes, and searchDt is described as a YYYY-MM date. The description adds no parameter info beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific action and scope: '도서관별 신착도서를 조회합니다' (query new arrival books by library). This clearly identifies a read operation over a resource and distinguishes it from search-by-title or popular-book tools, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than siblings such as search_popular_books_by_library, get_popular_books_by_library, or search_books. The agent is given no context for choosing this tool over alternatives, and no exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.