Skip to main content
Glama
opendata-kr

narajangteo-opening

by opendata-kr
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.4.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_bid_result retrieves detailed results for a single announcement, search_awards searches for awarded contracts, and search_openings searches for opening results with status filtering. No overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_bid_result, search_awards, search_openings. The verbs 'get' and 'search' appropriately differentiate the actions.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of querying Korean government procurement opening data. Each tool earns its place, covering essential retrieval operations without unnecessary bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers the core read operations for the domain: single announcement details, awarded contract search, and opening results search. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for listing all announcements or updating data), but the set is complete for a query-focused server.

  • Average 4.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 38 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior5/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; description adds that only winning bidder is returned and excludes lost bids. Warns about API request multiplication when bidKind is unspecified. No contradictions with annotations.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Description is several sentences long but each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose and key behavior. Could be slightly more concise, but no unnecessary content.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given 16 parameters and no output schema, description covers return content (only winning bidder), usage optimization, and sibling differentiation. Lacks explicit return format but sufficient for typical use cases. Minor gap in fully describing output structure.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions. Description reinforces key parameters (bidKind, region) with contextual usage advice, such as the impact of bidKind on API traffic. Adds value beyond schema but schema already does heavy lifting.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    Describes specific verb '검색한다' (searches) and resource '나라장터 낙찰 결과' (award results). Explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming get_bid_result and search_openings with their different purposes. Purpose is clear and specific.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Provides explicit use cases (who won, competitor history, longitudinal studies) and when not to use (for detailed bid results or opening progress, use alternatives). Gives performance advice on narrowing bidKind and date range to reduce API traffic.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior5/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    Adds significant context beyond annotations: status is client-side filter, response speed, truncated flag meaning, parallel queries with unspecified bidKind, distinction between 재입찰 and 재공고. No contradiction with annotations.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Description is informative but slightly lengthy; however, every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose and usage, then details.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    No output schema, but description covers behavior like truncation, parallelism, and response speed. Could mention return format but sufficient for correct use.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining performance implications of bidKind and the client-side nature of status filter.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    Description clearly states it searches 나라장터 개찰결과 목록 and filters by status. It differentiates from siblings search_awards (final awardee) and get_bid_result (single notice).

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    Explicitly states when to use (finding 유찰·재입찰 notices), when not (use siblings), and provides performance tips: narrow by institution/industry/period, specify bidKind to reduce traffic.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior5/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses that unspecified bidKind/status can consume up to 15 API requests internally, how multi-category/round results are handled, and that award method is estimated (with details on scoring). This adds significant behavioral context.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose, but slightly lengthy due to detailed behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value, though some condensing is possible.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, internal API behavior), the description covers all key aspects: usage context, parameter effects, alternatives, and transparency on internal requests. No significant gaps.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    With 100% schema coverage, the description adds crucial context: myBizno marks isOurs flag, bidKind/status affect API consumption, and specific values reduce traffic. It explains trade-offs beyond schema descriptions.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool retrieves a single bid result record by bid announcement number, using composite key matching, and lists the specific data fields. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools search_awards and search_openings for multi-announcement searches.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines5/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides explicit when-to-use (single bid lookup for post-analysis) and when-not-to-use (multiple announcements: use siblings). It also advises specifying bidKind and status to reduce API calls, offering efficiency guidance.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

narajangteo-opening-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

narajangteo-opening-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/opendata-kr/narajangteo-opening-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server