POSTECH PLMS MCP

plms_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search POSTECH PLMS for course outlines, assignment lists, first notice pages, and syllabi; results include sources, while notice/attachment bodies need separate fetching.

Instructions

Search course outlines, assignment lists, first notice pages and syllabi. Results include sources; fetch notice/attachment bodies separately.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "plms_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes
`course_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond that by disclosing the shape of results (sources only, bodies excluded), which is meaningful behavioral context. It omits pagination behavior implied by the limit param.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, with the purpose/scope front-loaded before the follow-up routing hint. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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 description is not required and the "sources" note is a bonus. However, with zero parameter documentation and no explicit sibling routing, the definition is only minimally complete for a search tool with three parameters.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails: it says nothing about what query accepts, how course_id scopes results, or how limit affects pagination. Only the parameter names themselves convey meaning.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb ("Search") plus the resources it covers (course outlines, assignment lists, notice pages, syllabi), so the agent knows this is a cross-content search rather than a single-resource list/get. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like plms_list_assignments or plms_course_outline, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Results include sources; fetch notice/attachment bodies separately" is a real routing instruction that tells the agent when to hand off to plms_get_notice/plms_read_attachment. It gives clear context but never states when NOT to use search versus the sibling list tools.

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