Get predicted crowding levels for South Korea attractions: crowded, normal, or quiet. For specific names or a regional summary. Values are forecasts, not actual measurements.
지역의 관광지 혼잡도(집중률). names 를 주면 그 관광지들만, 없으면 지역 요약.
수치는 한국관광공사가 산출한 예측값이며 실측이 아니다 — 답할 때 반드시 언급하여라. 등급은 혼잡·보통·한적 세 단어만 사용한다. 지역 요약에는 coverage(전체 몇 곳을 본 결과인지)가 있으니 같이 언급한다. 데이터가 모든 관광지에 있는 것은 아니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cd | Yes | ||
| days | No | ||
| names | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well. It explicitly warns that values are Korea Tourism Organization predictions, not measurements, requires the agent to mention this, restricts grade vocabulary to three terms, and notes that data is not available for every attraction.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first line states the core function and branching behavior, and the following lines contain only necessary answer-constraint instructions. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name appears.
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?
For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, the description covers many important response constraints and the main names/regional distinction. However, it omits the meaning of `days`, the format of `cd`, and a fuller description of the return structure beyond coverage, leaving noticeable 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only partially does. It clarifies the behavior of `names` and touches on region-level output via coverage, yet it does not explain `days` at all and gives no format or semantics for the required `cd` parameter.
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 opening sentence clearly identifies the tool as returning tourist-attraction crowding/concentration for a region, with specific behavior for the `names` parameter versus the regional-summary fallback. This distinguishes it from generic tools, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like recommend_quiet.
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 a clear conditional usage rule: pass `names` for specific attractions, omit it for a regional summary. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as recommend_quiet or list_places, nor does it mention exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.