Retrieve a MapleStory character's comprehensive stats including STR, DEX, and combat power by providing their OCID. Optionally specify a date to get stats from a past day.
캐릭터 종합 스탯(STR, DEX, 전투력 등)을 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. The verb '조회합니다' (retrieve) implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, does not mention authentication/permission needs, rate limits, or what happens when optional fields are omitted. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the literal action.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the resource ('character comprehensive stats') and the action ('retrieve'), with examples in parentheses. No filler, every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.
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?
The tool has an output schema and complete parameter schemas, so the description need not explain return values. However, it fails to mention the prerequisite of obtaining an OCID via get_character_ocid, and given the large sibling set, a sentence about when to choose this aggregate stat endpoint over specialized ones would improve completeness. It is adequate but leaves a few contextual gaps.
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), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; it does not clarify the meaning of 'date' when null or how to obtain an OCID.
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-resource pair: 'retrieves comprehensive character stats (STR, DEX, combat power, etc.)'. It clearly distinguishes itself from granular sibling tools like get_character_basic, get_character_hyper_stat, and get_character_ability by framing this as the aggregate overview.
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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling stat-specific tools. The intended usage is implied by the 'comprehensive stats' wording, but there is no stated condition, exclusion, or pointer to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.