Query a library's collection and loan records by library code, with optional ISBN and registration date filters, to determine book availability.
도서관별 장서/대출 데이터를 조회합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | 검색조건 (ALL=전체 데이터) | |
| endDt | No | 검색종료일자 (도서 등록일) - YYYY-MM-DD 형식 | |
| isbn13 | No | 13자리 ISBN | |
| pageNo | No | 페이지번호 | |
| libCode | Yes | 도서관코드 - search_library_codes 도구로 검색하세요 | |
| startDt | No | 검색시작일자 (도서 등록일) - YYYY-MM-DD 형식 | |
| pageSize | No | 페이지크기 (최대 1000) |
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 does not mention whether it performs read-only queries, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. The description is generic and does not add context beyond the tool name.
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 sentence, which is concise熧 but it lacks specificity and structure. It does not list any key parameters or usage context. It is not verbose, but it under-delivers on informativeness.
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?
Despite 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the return format, pagination details, or how the parameters interact (e.g., date range vs ISBN). The description is insufficient for an agent to know how to construct a valid query, especially given the many similar sibling tools.
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%, so the schema already defines each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond schema descriptions, but per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is warranted; however, the schema itself provides rich descriptions (e.g., libCode references another tool, date formats, constraints). Thus a slight above baseline is justified because the schema is self-sufficient.
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 verb 'search' and resource 'library collection/loan data' but is vague about what exactly is returned. It does not differentiate from many siblings like search_books, check_book_availability, or search_popular_books, which likely also involve books and libraries. The agent cannot tell what unique functionality this tool provides.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The schema hints at filtering by ISBN, date, and pagination, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over search_books or search_popular_books_by_library. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.