Retrieve and list items in the MYBOX trash with optional sorting, pagination, and order controls. Use it to review deleted files and folders before restoring or permanently removing them.
휴지통 목록 조회
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about safety, pagination, permissions, or read-only nature. For a list operation, that's a notable 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?
The description is extremely concise—a single three-word phrase—but it is under-specified rather than wasteful. It front-loads the core purpose, though it lacks any supporting detail.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is far too terse to be adequate. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool without additional context.
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% and the description provides zero information about the four parameters (sort, limit, order, offset). The agent has no idea what these parameters mean or how to use them.
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 '휴지통 목록 조회' translates to 'Retrieve trash list,' which states a verb (retrieve) and resource (trash list). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like dms_list or dms_trash_routine, and provides no additional scope or context.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dms_list or files_trash_clean. The description is purely a label, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.