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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (retrieves timetables) but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by pageNo/numOfRows parameters), filtering behavior (implied by filterNonArrive), response format, error conditions, or rate limits. For a read operation with multiple parameters, this is insufficient.

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 and front-loaded: two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and scope. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like pagination, filtering, response format, or error handling. For a tool with multiple operational parameters and no structured output definition, the description should provide more context to guide effective use.

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 description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema. It mentions '요일별, 상하행별 시간표' (timetables by day type and direction), which aligns with the dailyType and upDownType parameters, but doesn't explain the other parameters (stationId, pageNo, numOfRows, filterNonArrive). With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance understanding.

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: '지하철역의 시간표를 조회합니다' (retrieves subway station timetables). It specifies the resource (subway station timetables) and scope (by day type and direction). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_subway_timetables' or 'search_subway_station', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_all_subway_timetables' or 'search_subway_station', nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., that stationId must be obtained from another tool first, as hinted in the schema but not in the description). This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

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