Retrieve a MapleStory character's propensity stats like charisma and charm by OCID, with optional date filtering. Get clear insight into character personality development.
캐릭터 성향 정보(카리스마, 매력 등)를 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 does not mention whether the operation is read-only (likely), the date semantics beyond basics, error conditions, or what the response looks like. For a read operation, this is a minimal disclosure but not comprehensive.
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 short and to the point, with one sentence that conveys the tool's purpose. However, it lacks any structured format or additional details that might improve scannability; the brevity is acceptable but could be slightly more informative without being verbose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is arguably adequate for basic invocation. However, the lack of usage guidelines and behavioral transparency (since no annotations exist) means the description alone is incomplete for an agent to fully understand when and how to use it correctly in context.
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 both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify the date parameter's valid range or format beyond the schema's YYYY-MM-DD hint. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3.
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 tool retrieves character propensity information (charisma, charm, etc.) in Korean. It identifies the resource (character propensity) and the action (조회하다), but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_character_popularity' or 'get_character_basic', which may overlap in scope.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining an OCID first) or any context for when propensity details are needed. This is a significant gap given the large sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.