Retrieve a character's best Mu Lung Dojo record by OCID, with an optional date to query specific past dates. Use this to monitor climbing progress or verify record details.
캐릭터 무릉도장 최고 기록을 조회합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | 조회 기준일 (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| ocid | Yes | 캐릭터 OCID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says '조회합니다' (queries), which implies a read operation, but gives no detail about date sensitivity, behavior when a character has no record, response differences, or any other operational traits. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it sacrifices depth in other dimensions.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description omits behavioral context like the role of the optional date parameter, and it does not cross-reference the sibling get_ranking_dojang. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent selecting among many similar character 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%: both ocid and date have descriptions in the input schema. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 a specific verb and resource: '캐릭터 무릉도장 최고 기록을 조회합니다' ('Retrieves the character's best Mu Lung Dojang record'). This clearly identifies what the tool does and is distinguishable from general character info tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_ranking_dojang, so it misses the opportunity for explicit differentiation.
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?
Usage context is implied: an agent would use this to fetch a character's dojang record. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ranking_dojang, nor any mention of the prerequisite of having an OCID (aside from the schema). The guidance is minimal and relies on the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.