Retrieves item (ITM) and classification (OBJ) codes for a KOSIS statistical table. Use it to confirm the valid codes needed before requesting data.
통계표의 항목(ITM)과 분류(OBJ) 코드를 조회합니다. kosis_data에 넣을 코드를 확인하는 단계입니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org_id | Yes | 기관 ID (예: 통계청 101). find_table 결과의 orgId | |
| tbl_id | Yes | 통계표 ID (예: DT_1B040A3). find_table 결과의 tblId |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a lookup/조회 step that returns codes and feeds into kosis_data, which implies a read operation, but it says nothing about permissions, return format, or failure behavior for a metadata query.
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, front-loaded with the what (ITM/OBJ code lookup) followed by the workflow position. No filler; both sentences carry information, though it is minimal overall.
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 two-parameter, fully-required metadata lookup with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is retrieved and how it fits before kosis_data. Slightly more on the return shape would help, but it is largely complete.
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 100%, with org_id and tbl_id both documented (including examples and their origin in find_table results). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 concrete verb and resource: retrieving the item (ITM) and classification (OBJ) codes of a statistical table. This is distinct from the data-pulling siblings like kosis_data, which the description references, though it does not explicitly name find_table or other siblings for contrast.
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 second sentence positions the tool as a preparatory step before kosis_data ('the step to check codes to put into kosis_data'), giving implied workflow context. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.