This MCP server provides read-only access to a local cache of Kwangwoon University notices via four tools:
search_notices: Full-text search with filters for query, category, date range, limit, and offset. Returns redacted metadata summaries (title, department, source URL, dates, freshness status).
get_notice: Retrieve a single notice by its Decimal Unique ID (DUID). Returns summary and optional redacted body text (may be null for metadata-only crawls).
list_latest_notices: List recent notices sorted by posted date, with optional category filter and pagination.
list_categories: List the fixed eleven categories with counts of active (non-tombstoned) cached notices.
All tools return bounded, redacted metadata only (no full body, attachments, or personal info). Structured error envelopes are included for invalid input, not found, or storage issues.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@kw-notice-mcp Show me the latest notices from Kwangwoon University"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
광운대학교 공지를 수집해 로컬 SQLite에 캐시하고, 읽기 전용 MCP 도구 4개로 STDIO에 제공하는 서버입니다.
MCP 도구 4개입니다. 전부 읽기 전용이고, 호출마다 SQLite를 URI mode=ro 로 새로 엽니다.
도구 | 입력 | 반환 |
| — | 고정 카테고리 목록과 캐시 건수 |
|
| 게시일 기준 최신 공지 |
|
| FTS5 검색 |
|
| 단건 조회 |
Related MCP server: document-catalog-mcp
런타임: Python 3.13, uv
서버 · 저장: MCP SDK (STDIO), SQLite + FTS5
수집: httpx2, BeautifulSoup4
설정 · CLI: Pydantic, pydantic-settings, Typer
품질: pytest, ruff, basedpyright
uv sync
uv run kw-notice-mcp --help
uv run kw-notice-mcp init-db --db-path data/kw-notice.sqlite3
uv run kw-notice-mcp status --db-path data/kw-notice.sqlite3
uv run kw-notice-mcp serve --db-path data/kw-notice.sqlite3설정은 KW_NOTICE_* 환경변수로 읽고, CLI 옵션이 우선합니다. 자격증명이나 비밀값은 없습니다.
MCP 클라이언트 등록 예시입니다.
{
"mcpServers": {
"kw-notice": {
"command": "/Users/me/.local/bin/uv",
"args": [
"run",
"--project",
"/path/to/kw-notice-mcp",
"kw-notice-mcp",
"serve",
"--db-path",
"/path/to/kw-notice-mcp/data/kw-notice.sqlite3"
]
}
}
}command 에는 uv 의 절대경로를 적어야 합니다. Claude Desktop 같은 GUI 앱은 셸 PATH를 상속하지 않아서 "uv" 로만 적으면 프로세스 생성이 실패합니다.
robots 우회 없음. 우회 스위치 자체가 없습니다.
실행당 요청 1회 예산. 목록 첫 페이지만 봅니다.
metadata-only. 상세 페이지, 본문, 첨부, 이미지, 이메일, 전화번호는 절대 요청하지 않습니다.
fail-closed. 403, 429, CAPTCHA, 깨진 마크업, 타임아웃이면 즉시 중단합니다.
권한을 주장하지 않습니다. 이 통제들은 통제일 뿐 허가가 아닙니다.
종료 코드가 스케줄러 연동 계약입니다. 0 성공, 10 차단 또는 예산 소진, 11 다른 크롤이 lease 보유, 12 설정 오류, 13 인프라 실패.
Get one redacted cached notice by its decimal DUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| duid | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| error | Yes | |
| notice | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It reveals that the notice is 'redacted' and 'cached', which are meaningful behavioral traits (e.g., data may not be live, sensitive fields are redacted). For a read-only GET operation, this is sufficient transparency beyond generic expectations.
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 a single, tightly worded sentence that includes the verb, resource, and key qualifiers ('redacted', 'cached', 'decimal DUID'). It wastes no words and is immediately scannable.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings, but the strong parameter and behavior hints mitigate that. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists.
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?
The schema provides only a parameter name and type (string), with zero description coverage. The description adds crucial semantics by specifying that the DUID is 'decimal', clarifying the expected format. This meaningfully compensates for the schema's sparse metadata, though it could go further by explaining what a DUID represents or how it relates to other tools.
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 clearly specifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('one redacted cached notice'), with a unique identifier ('decimal DUID'). It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_notices and list_latest_notices, which cover different retrieval patterns.
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 description implies the usage context: use this tool when you have a specific decimal DUID to retrieve a single notice. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear from the wording. There is no exclusion or when-not guidance, so it doesn't reach a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the fixed eleven categories and cached notice counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| error | Yes | |
| categories | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the notice counts are 'cached', indicating they might be stale, and that the categories are 'fixed eleven' — a stable, predictable set. This adds meaningful context beyond just 'list categories'.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word adds value: 'fixed' and 'cached' are important qualifiers. There is no redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the trivial complexity (zero parameters, read-only listing) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It specifies what is returned (categories with cached counts) and implies no side effects. No additional context is needed.
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?
The input schema has zero properties, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on what the tool does rather than parameters.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' and names the exact resource: 'the fixed eleven categories and cached notice counts.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_notices and get_notice, which deal with individual notices.
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 description clearly implies when to use the tool: to retrieve the fixed list of categories and their cached notice counts. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools (search_notices, get_notice, list_latest_notices) makes the distinction obvious. For a simple list operation, this is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the latest cached notices by posted date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| category | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| error | Yes | |
| items | Yes | |
| limit | Yes | |
| offset | Yes | |
| has_more | Yes | |
| next_offset | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns cached notices sorted by posted date, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain the caching implication (e.g., staleness), pagination behavior, or ordering direction, leaving some ambiguity.
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 a single short sentence that immediately conveys the core function without redundancy. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple list operation but lacks parameter semantics and detailed behavioral context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but without parameter documentation, the tool is only minimally 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%, and the description adds no information about the meaning or usage of limit, offset, or category. The agent must guess from parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient for reliable invocation.
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 uses a specific verb (list), identifies the resource (cached notices), and specifies ordering by posted date. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like search_notices (searching) and get_notice (single item retrieval).
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 description implies usage for retrieving recent notices but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over search_notices or get_notice, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Usage context is implied rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search redacted cached notices with bounded filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| published_to | No | ||
| published_from | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| error | Yes | |
| items | Yes | |
| limit | Yes | |
| query | Yes | |
| offset | Yes | |
| has_more | Yes | |
| next_offset | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds context about notices being 'redacted' and 'cached' and filters being 'bounded', which goes beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose important details like pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only.
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 one-sentence description is economical and front-loaded, but it sacrifices substance; 'bounded filters' is vague. It is not verbose, so it earns a high but not perfect score.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool lacks any parameter documentation, annotations, or usage context. For a 6-parameter search tool, this is incomplete; an agent needs more info about date formats, limit behavior, and category values.
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 has 0% description coverage, and the description's 'bounded filters' is too generic to clarify the six parameters. No per-parameter semantics are provided, so an agent cannot infer how to construct a query.
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 clearly states the tool searches for notices, specifying they are 'redacted cached' and 'bounded filters'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_latest_notices' and 'get_notice', which imply listing or fetching single notices.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it; sibling names hint at different behaviors but there is no explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0get_noticelist_categorieslist_latest_noticessearch_noticesScored across 4 tools
Each tool has a distinct role: searching with filters, fetching a specific notice by ID, listing recent notices, and listing categories. There is no overlap between these operations.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: search_notices, get_notice, list_latest_notices, list_categories. This makes the set predictable and easy to navigate.
With four tools, the server is tightly scoped for a notice retrieval use case. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, and the count is neither too thin nor excessive.
For a read-only cache of notices, the set covers the essential operations: searching, retrieving individual notices, browsing the latest, and understanding available categories. There are no obvious missing functions for this scope.
Read-only MCP server for searching Japan government procurement bid information from the KKJ portal.
Read-only MCP server for The Quiet Protocol's engines, benchmarks, proof, and business data.
Read-only MCP server for ClassQuill, a tutoring-business-management platform.
Public MCP server for discovering open jobs. Search, filter, and get application links.
