Retrieve South Korean National Assembly schedules by date, covering plenary sessions, committees, events, and seminars; filter results by schedule type or committee.
국회 일정 통합(본회의·위원회·국회행사·세미나).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD, YYYY-MM 또는 YYYY. 결과가 15만 자를 넘으면(연 단위 전체 등) 오류이니 달로 나누거나 kind·committee 로 좁힌다 | |
| kind | No | 일정종류, 예: 국회행사, 위원회 | |
| committee | No |
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 burden and it says nothing about read-only behavior, response shape, or failure modes. The only noted operational constraint (a ~150,000-character result limit forcing month-level splitting) lives in the schema, not the description.
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?
A single compact sentence with a clear head term (국회 일정 통합) front-loaded, followed by the scope enumeration. No filler, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than economy.
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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits error behavior, result limits, and how to combine date with kind/committee. An agent would need to open the schema to avoid the documented overflow error.
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 67%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The date parameter carries detailed format and size-limit guidance in the schema, but the committee parameter has no description anywhere and the interaction between date granularity and kind/committee narrowing is only hinted at in the schema.
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 resource (국회 일정) and enumerates the aggregated event types (본회의·위원회·국회행사·세미나), which signals an integrated calendar view. It implicitly distinguishes itself from narrower siblings like assembly_committee_meetings, but never names them, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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 no guidance on when to use this aggregated schedule versus assembly_committee_meetings or assembly_live. Nothing states prerequisites, typical callers, or when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.