get_requirementsRetrieve accessibility requirements for a specific KRDS component without markup, including required inputs, guarantees, delegated items, and unresolved questions for code or design reviews.
마크업 없이 특정 컴포넌트의 접근성 요건만 조회한다. 필수 입력 목록, 보장 항목, 위임 항목, 그리고 아직 확정되지 않은 미해결 질문까지 포함한다. 코드 리뷰나 설계 검토에 쓴다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| componentId | Yes | 컴포넌트 id — 'krds:button' 또는 'button' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden. It usefully discloses the payload composition (required inputs, guaranteed items, delegated items, unresolved questions), which is real behavioral context for a read tool. It does not state read-only/idempotency guarantees, behavior on an unknown componentId, or any error/rate-limit characteristics.
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?
Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then return contents, then use case. No filler and no repetition of what the schema already states; every sentence earns its place.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description takes on the job of describing the return payload and does so explicitly. Together with the fully covered single parameter and the named use cases, it is largely sufficient for a read-only lookup, with only edge-case behavior (invalid id, response format) left unspecified.
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% and the single componentId is fully documented in the schema (including the 'krds:button' / 'button' accepted formats). The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (조회) and resource (특정 컴포넌트의 접근성 요건), and explicitly scopes out markup ("마크업 없이 ... 요건만"), which implicitly separates it from the markup-bearing get_component sibling. It never names a sibling directly, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
"코드 리뷰나 설계 검토에 쓴다" supplies a usable context for when to reach for this tool, but there are no exclusions and no alternatives named (e.g., when to use get_component or list_components instead). Usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.