Retrieve Korean court auction court, region, and land/building category codes; verify supported subcode lists, including official city/county/district lists when a province is specified.
법원·시도·토지/건물 대분류 코드. 하위 코드 목록 지원 범위 확인.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | 시도 코드/이름. 생략 시 오프라인 목록, 지정 시 공식 시군구 목록 조회. | |
| max_calls | No | 초기 연결·재시도 포함 누적 한도. 신규 기본 10. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / max_callsAdded value: +{
+ "description": "초기 연결·재시도 포함 누적 한도. 신규 기본 10.",
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / properties / regionAdded value: +{
+ "description": "시도 코드/이름. 생략 시 오프라인 목록, 지정 시 공식 시군구 목록 조회.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description says nothing about network access, latency, caching, or whether any state is touched — the offline-vs-official lookup behavior lives only in the schema, not the description. For a tool whose annotations are non-trivial and somewhat surprising for a code lookup, the description adds no behavioral context.
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 short fragments with no filler, but the structure is noun-phrase-first with no verb and no front-loaded statement of what the tool returns. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than discipline.
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?
With no output schema, the description must say what comes back (a code list, keyed how, with what hierarchy) and it does not. Combined with no guidance on the `region`-omitted offline mode and no differentiation from auction_coverage, an agent lacks what it needs to call this confidently.
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 100%, so both `region` (offline list vs official sigungu list) and `max_calls` (cumulative budget including retries) are already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional meaning about either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names the resources it deals with (court / province / land-building top-level codes) and hints at sub-code list coverage, but it never states a verb — an agent cannot tell whether it lists, resolves, or validates codes. It is distinguishable from auction_detail or auction_search only by inference, not by an explicit statement.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus auction_coverage (which sounds closely related) or the other five siblings. The phrase about checking the supported range of sub-code lists is a faint usage hint at best, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.