Search detailed South Korean region codes using a keyword or province code, then use the codes to filter library data by specific areas.
세부지역코드를 검색합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 결과 개수 제한 (기본값: 20) | |
| keyword | No | 검색할 지역 키워드 (예: '강남', '부산', '수원', '서대문') | |
| provinceCode | No | 광역시도 코드 (11=서울, 21=부산, 31=경기 등)로 필터링 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is likely a read-only operation, nor any filtering or pagination behavior. The description only states 'searches' without explaining what happens with missing or partial inputs.
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 very short ('Search detailed region codes.'), which is concise, but it lacks useful structure or detail. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information because there is only a single sentence that provides minimal value.
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 three parameters (one with an enum for province codes) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the parameters or the expected output, and it fails to distinguish it from related sibling tools. More context is needed for effective 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?
The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but the schema is adequate for understanding the parameters.
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 region codes, which is a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_region_codes or get_detailed_region_codes, and the meaning of 'detailed' is not clarified. It also lacks any detail on what the search returns.
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 versus alternatives. The sibling tools include get_region_codes and get_detailed_region_codes, and without any distinction, an agent could easily pick the wrong one. No context on use cases or filters is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.