List your saved writings with number, kind, title, and character count so you can review the posts available for writing style guidance.
넣어 둔 내 글 목록(번호 · 종류 · 제목 · 글자 수).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| style | No | 문체 묶음 이름. 보통은 비워 두세요(「기본」). 회사용 · 개인 블로그용처럼 따로 둘 때만 씁니다. 글 종류(블로그 · 공지 …)는 style 이 아니라 kind 로 나눕니다. | 기본 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds only that the result is a scoped list of the user's own writings, which is modest value; it discloses nothing about ordering, pagination, or emptiness behavior.
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 the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is terse enough that it borders on under-specification rather than being a model of informative brevity.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. With one fully-documented optional parameter, the description carries enough to call the tool correctly, missing only sibling routing guidance.
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 100% and the single 'style' parameter is documented thoroughly in the schema, including the style-vs-kind distinction and the '기본' default. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?
The description states a clear verb+resource (list my stored writings) and even enumerates the returned fields (number, kind, title, character count). It distinguishes itself implicitly from read_my_writing and add/remove_my_writing through the 'list' verb, but does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like read_my_writing for a single item or list_writing_kinds. The style/kind distinction lives in the schema, not in usage guidance, so an agent gets no routing help from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.