Map a legal document to structured citation fields (issuing authority, number, promulgation date, enforcement date, enacting institution) for direct use in bibliographic management tools.
한 건을 서지(인용) 필드로 매핑한다 — 발령주체·호·공포일·시행일·제정기관.
목록에서 1건을 다시 찾아 매핑한다. 서지관리 도구(Ibis 의 legislation 유형 등)로
바로 넘길 수 있는 모양이다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| doc_id | Yes | ||
| target | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description does not contradict these. However, the description adds no detail about side effects or behavioral constraints beyond what the annotations already state, so the score is average due to the lower bar set by the annotations.
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 short but poorly structured and unclear, with ambiguous phrasing and a confusing second sentence. It lacks a clear, organized statement of function and usage.
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?
There is no output schema and no description of return format or expected result. The mapping behavior is not fully specified, leaving the agent uncertain about what the tool actually produces.
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 does not explain the meaning or role of the 'target' and 'doc_id' parameters. This is a critical gap for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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 that it maps a single item to bibliographic fields and then finds one from a list, but the exact purpose and input/output semantics are vague. It does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling tools like law_search or law_body.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tool names provide hints, but the description does not explain the conditions or context for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.