Find specific Korean Decimal Classification (KDC) codes by subject keyword and optional major code filter. Locate detailed subject codes for library searches and classification.
세부주제코드를 검색합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 결과 개수 제한 (기본값: 20) | |
| keyword | No | 검색할 주제 키워드 (예: '의학', '컴퓨터', '문학', '역사') | |
| majorCode | No | 대분류 코드 (0-9)로 필터링 |
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 must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'searches', but does not clarify filtering semantics, whether it requires keywords, whether it returns partial matches, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a full-disclosure tool.
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 extremely brief, one sentence, which is efficient on length. However, it provides only a minimal statement, which is not conciseness but under-specification. It lacks the depth needed for a useful tool definition.
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's moderate complexity with 3 parameters but no annotations or output schema, the description should explain how to form a query and what the output represents. It only says 'searches', leaving the agent to infer how to use it effectively, which is insufficient.
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?
All parameters have descriptions in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how keyword, limit, and majorCode interact (e.g., are they ANDed?). Thus, while schema coverage is 100%, the description does not enhance understanding.
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 the tool searches for detailed subject codes (세부주제코드를 검색합니다), providing a clear verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like search_detailed_region_codes or get_detailed_subject_codes, which could cause confusion.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it might be for finding codes by keyword, nor does it contrast with get_detailed_subject_codes which likely retrieves all codes. Without this, an agent may not route correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.