Resolves a Korean region name (e.g., '경주', '전북 전주') into its administrative code; if ambiguous, returns candidates for user selection, then provides the code for follow-up tools.
지역명을 시군구 코드로 변환한다.
예: "경주", "전북 전주", "제주시". status 가 ambiguous 면 candidates 를 사용자에게 보여주고 되물어라. 이후 도구들은 여기서 받은 cd 를 사용한다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
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 must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions the ambiguous case and the fact that the output (cd) is used by other tools, but does not describe success/error cases, output structure, or whether the operation is read-only. It adds some context but not a full behavioral profile.
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 sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by examples and a behavioral note, all in a compact structure that is easy to scan.
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 has no output schema, so the description should explain what is returned. It mentions 'cd' and 'status' but does not clarify their format or possible values. It also omits error handling for no-match cases. For a prerequisite tool, this leaves some gaps, though the basic usage is clear.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does so by defining 'query' as a region name and providing three illustrative examples. This is sufficient for a single-string parameter, though it does not specify exact formatting rules beyond the examples.
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 states a specific verb (converts), a resource (region name to Si/Gun/Gu code), and gives concrete examples. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on code resolution rather than attraction or crowding lookup.
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?
It explicitly notes that subsequent tools use the code from this tool, establishing it as a prerequisite. It also instructs to show candidates and ask again when ambiguous, giving a clear conditional. It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.