POSTECH PLMS MCP

plms_get_notice

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch an announcement’s full body and attachments with board_id and article_id from list_notices to view complete notice details.

Instructions

Read an announcement's full body and attachments using IDs returned by list_notices.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "board_id": "<board_id>",
      "article_id": "<article_id>"
    },
    "name": "plms_get_notice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`board_id`	Yes
`article_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the body and attachments are returned in full, but says nothing about attachment retrieval mechanics, payload size, or pagination. Adequate but not rich given how much the annotations already carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the sourcing constraint appended. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers the essential scope (body plus attachments) for a two-parameter read tool. The only gap is the 0%-documented parameter distinction, which is a schema-level rather than description-level shortfall.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so both integer parameters (board_id, article_id) are undocumented in the schema. The description compensates partially by stating the IDs come from list_notices, but it does not distinguish board_id from article_id or explain why both are required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (an announcement's full body and attachments), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling plms_list_notices by noting the IDs come from there. An agent can distinguish this full-content fetch from the list operation without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'using IDs returned by list_notices' establishes the prerequisite workflow (list first, then fetch) and points to the correct alternative for enumerating notices. There is no explicit when-not guidance, but the ordering constraint is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.