Search 22nd National Assembly members by name, party, district, or committee to retrieve election history and contact details; call without filters to list all members.
제22대 국회의원 인적사항 검색(정당·지역구·소속위원회·당선횟수·연락처). 조건 없이 부르면 전원.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| party | No | ||
| district | No | 선거구 일부, 예: 서울, 비례 | |
| committee | No | 소속위원회명 일부 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only the no-filter-returns-all behavior; nothing about result size, pagination, read-only nature, or response shape is stated. For a tool that can return an entire legislature's membership, that is a meaningful gap.
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?
Two compact sentences with zero waste; the resource and searchable facets come first, and the no-filter behavior follows. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 is conceptually simple (a filtered list), and there is no output schema to explain. Still, an agent lacks guidance on whether filters combine as AND, how partial matching works for name/party, and whether '전원' results are paginated or truncated.
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 50%: district and committee have inline descriptions (partial match, examples), while name and party are bare. The description's field list confirms party/district/committee as filterable, partially compensating, but it says nothing about name matching semantics or whether party accepts partial strings.
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 and resource: searching personal information of 22nd National Assembly members, and enumerates the searchable facets (party, district, committee, election count, contact). It is distinguishable from resource-specific siblings like assembly_bills or assembly_votes, though it does not address overlap with the generic assembly_search.
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?
"조건 없이 부르면 전원" implies that calling with no filters returns the full roster, which is useful. However, it never says when to prefer this over assembly_search or the other assembly_* tools, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.