Retrieve overall MapleStory rankings filtered by date, class, world, or specific character, with pagination support.
종합 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 (전사, 마법사, 궁수 등) | |
| world_name | No | 월드 이름 | |
| world_type | No | 월드 타입 (0: 일반, 1: 리부트) |
| 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 only states the operation and gives no information about pagination, default date behavior, filter interactions, or what the response contains.
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 short sentence with no filler, and it is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so terse that it adds little beyond the tool name itself.
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 six optional parameters and the large family of sibling ranking tools, this description is too minimal. It omits when to select this tool over alternatives and how the optional filters affect the query.
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 all six parameters already have meaningful descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level value, so the baseline 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 clearly identifies the operation ('조회합니다' / 'retrieves') and the resource ('종합 랭킹' / 'overall ranking'). The word 'overall' helps distinguish it from sibling ranking tools, though it does not explain what the overall ranking contains.
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 sibling ranking tools like get_ranking_union, get_ranking_guild, or get_ranking_dojang. Usage must be inferred solely from the tool name and the word 'overall'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.