Retrieve the full content of a specific MapleStory notice by providing its notice ID, enabling detailed access to announcements without browsing the list.
특정 공지사항 상세 내용을 조회합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notice_id | Yes | 공지사항 ID |
| 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It only says '조회' (retrieve/query), which weakly implies a read operation, but it does not disclose any error behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or relationship to the required notice_id.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence communicates the tool's purpose with no filler. 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 is simple and has an output schema, but the description lacks usage routing and behavioral context. An agent could call it correctly with a notice_id, but it is not told how to obtain that ID or when this detail tool should be preferred over the notice-list siblings.
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?
The schema already fully documents the single parameter notice_id with type and description, so the description does not need to add much. The baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no additional parameter context.
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 Korean description '특정 공지사항 상세 내용을 조회합니다' clearly states the action ('retrieve') and the resource ('detailed content of a specific notice'). The words '특정' (specific) and '상세' (detail) distinguish it from sibling list-style tools like get_notices and get_update_notices.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_notices or the other notice-list siblings. It does not mention that a notice_id should first be obtained from a list call, nor does it state when this tool is not appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.