get_onboarding_guideCall first when starting the service to retrieve onboarding steps and the bound user ID, enabling claim workflows to initialize with the correct user context.
서비스 시작 시 가장 먼저 호출합니다. 온보딩 절차와 bound_user_id를 반환합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (onboarding procedure plus bound_user_id), which implies a read-only, side-effect-free call, but it never explicitly states read-only behavior, whether the guide is static or user-specific, or any auth/prerequisite requirements around bound_user_id.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero waste, and the critical ordering instruction ('call first') is front-loaded ahead of the return-value note.
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 and is flagged, so the description needn't enumerate return fields in depth; mentioning the procedure and bound_user_id is sufficient orientation. Combined with the entry-point guidance, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, with only the user-scoping/statefulness question left implicit.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies: the empty schema is self-explanatory and the description correctly adds no parameter detail.
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?
Names a concrete verb+resource (retrieves the onboarding guide) and states what it returns: the onboarding procedure and bound_user_id. The 'call first at service start' framing positions it as the entry point, which meaningfully separates it from siblings like register_user or get_user_profile, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Gives clear positive guidance: call this first when starting the service. That is an actionable ordering instruction an agent can follow. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to call it (e.g., after onboarding is already complete), so it is not a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.