Resolve a MapleStory character name into its OCID, the required identifier for querying other character information. Obtain this key to enable further character data requests.
캐릭터 이름으로 OCID(캐릭터 식별자)를 조회합니다. 다른 캐릭터 정보 조회에 필요한 값입니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| character_name | Yes | 캐릭터 이름 |
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it's a lookup operation ('조회합니다') and that the result is a prerequisite for other lookups, which implies a read-only behavior. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the character must exist, error behavior for invalid names, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.
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, concise sentence that states the purpose and the key context (needed for other lookups). No wasted words, and the essential information is front-loaded. It earns a high score for efficiency.
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?
For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and the value's role in subsequent calls. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit error/edge-case behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, this is not a significant omission.
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% (the only parameter character_name is described as '캐릭터 이름'). The description adds the context that this parameter is used to look up the OCID, which is slightly more than the schema. However, it doesn't add format constraints (e.g., exact name matching, case sensitivity) beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's function: it looks up an OCID (character identifier) by character name, and notes that this value is needed for other character info lookups. It uses a specific verb ('조회합니다') and resource ('OCID'), making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_guild_id, though the mention that it's needed for other character lookups provides some context.
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 implies usage context by stating the OCID is needed for other character information lookups, which suggests when to use this tool (before other character info tools). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling list shows many character-related tools, but the description doesn't explicitly route the agent to them or explain exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.