Retrieve search guidance for a category, including dynamic filter keys, operators, observed values, and answer policies to build accurate product queries.
카테고리·동적 필터 키/연산자·관측값과 답변 정책을 확인한다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content scope (what the guide contains) but no further behavioral details such as size, caching, or whether the guide changes over time.
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?
One compact sentence front-loads the returned content with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple reference tool, though the middle-dot list is slightly dense.
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, so return values need not be explained. Still, for an agent to call this correctly, the description should indicate when to use it relative to the many search-related siblings and what the category parameter does; both are missing.
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 0% for the single optional category parameter. The description mentions '카테고리' only as one of the guide's content areas, not as an input that filters the response, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameter.
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 specific content the guide returns—categories, dynamic filter keys/operators, observed values, and answer policy—which distinguishes it from the search/compare siblings that operate on products. However, it does not explicitly contrast with documentation-oriented siblings like get_product_docs or search_product_docs, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. It never states that this should be called before search_products to learn filter syntax, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.