Search South Korean statistical tables by name or content using KOSIS integrated search. Specify a query and optional maximum records to retrieve relevant tables.
통계표를 이름·내용으로 찾는다(KOSIS 통합검색).
Args: query: 검색어(예: '사교육비', '출산율'). max_records: 돌려줄 최대 건수.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| max_records | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful behavioral specifics: search scope is by name/content and max_records caps the result count. It does not describe output shape or pagination, but for a simple read-only search this is a minor gap with no contradiction.
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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence states purpose and a short Args block defines the parameters. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary 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?
For a two-parameter read-only search tool with helpful annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details: what is searched, how to phrase the query, and the result cap. The only notable absence is a pointer to sibling tools for alternative use cases, but the simple scope and annotations make the definition sufficiently 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 0%, but the description fully compensates by clearly defining query as the search term with concrete examples and max_records as the maximum number of results to return. Both parameters receive meaning beyond their bare schema titles.
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 specific action ('찾는다/finds') and resource ('통계표/statistical tables'), and specifies the search is by name or content. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as kosis_list or kosis_meta, so it falls just short of full differentiation.
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 examples (e.g., '사교육비', '출산율') and 'KOSIS 통합검색' imply this is for finding tables by keyword, giving some contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.