K-Targo Subway MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned (all combinations of days/directions) but doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's comprehensive scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by details about what combinations are included.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the pagination system (pageNo, numOfRows), the implications of filterNonArrive, or what the delayMsec parameter controls. The agent would struggle to understand the full behavior and output format from this description alone.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the schema. It mentions the need to obtain stationId from another tool, but this is already covered in the schema's parameter description.

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's purpose: retrieving all timetables for a subway station across all days and directions. It specifies the scope ('모든 요일, 모든 방향') and the comprehensive nature of the results. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_subway_timetable' tool, which likely provides more specific filtering options.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_subway_timetable'. It mentions that stationId can be obtained from 'search_subway_station', but this is parameter documentation rather than usage context. There's no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison with sibling tools.

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