Retrieve MapleStory Mu Lung Dojo rankings by class, world, or date. Filter by character OCID or page to find a specific player's rank.
무릉도장 랭킹을 조회합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | 조회 기준일 (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| ocid | No | 특정 캐릭터 OCID | |
| page | No | 페이지 번호 | |
| class_ | No | 직업 | |
| world_name | No | 월드 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states only that the tool queries rankings, implying a read operation, but does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering semantics, rate limits, or any quirks. For a tool with five optional parameters and multiple filtering options, this is insufficient.
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 consists of a single clear sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for a simple query tool, though it does not front-load any distinguishing information beyond the resource name. No fluff exists, but it is also not rich in guidance.
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?
Despite having an output schema and full parameter schema coverage, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to correctly use the tool. It does not mention typical use cases (e.g., querying a specific character's dojang record vs. overall rankings), how date filtering works, or any prerequisites. For a tool with multiple optional filters and many siblings, this is incomplete.
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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all five parameters (date, ocid, page, class_, world_name), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no additional insight into how these parameters interact or are formatted. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 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 '무릉도장 랭킹을 조회합니다' clearly states the action (조회 - query) and resource (무릉도장 랭킹 - Mu Lung Dojo ranking). It distinguishes from sibling ranking tools by name and the specific ranking type, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_ranking_overall. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling ranking tools (overall, union, guild, theseed, achievement). It only states what it does, not the context or conditions that would lead an agent to select it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.