Sequentially collects Korean court auction listings into a job with atomic checkpoints, letting you resume by the same job_id while rejecting changed query conditions.
순차 수집·원자 체크포인트. 같은 job_id로 재개, 조건 변경 거부.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| job_id | Yes | ||
| max_calls | No | 초기 연결·재시도 포함 누적 한도. 신규 기본 10. | |
| max_pages | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds substantive traits beyond that — progress is checkpointed atomically (safe to interrupt) and the query is frozen for a job_id, so changing conditions is refused. It omits failure/retry behavior and how max_calls interacts with the checkpoint, keeping it below a 5.
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 terse sentences with zero filler, and the core mechanism (sequential + atomic checkpoint) is front-loaded. For a tool with a deeply nested query schema it is arguably under-sized, which keeps it from a 5.
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 nested 14-property query object, no output schema, and the existence of auction_job_status for polling, the description should explain what the call returns (a job handle?) and how it relates to the status sibling. Those gaps are significant for a complex, long-running collection tool.
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 coverage is only 25% across 4 params plus a 14-property nested query object. The description does add real meaning to job_id and query by explaining that the query must stay identical across resumes, but the nested filter fields and max_pages remain undocumented anywhere.
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 indicates a sequential bulk collection operation with atomic checkpointing, and the tool name supplies the 'auction' resource. However, it never says what is being collected (auction listings) or how it differs from sibling auction_search / auction_export, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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?
It states a rule for resuming ('resume with the same job_id, condition changes rejected') but gives no guidance on when to pick this tool over auction_search or auction_export, nor any prerequisite such as needing a prior run or a quota.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.