find_treatyFind double-taxation treaties by country name or retrieve treaty text by ID, then filter for provisions like dividends, interest, or permanent establishments.
조세조약(이중과세방지협약)을 국가명으로 찾거나(예: 미국, 베트남, 일본) id로 본문을 읽습니다. 국가명을 넣으면 조세조약만 골라 보여주고, keyword로 본문 중 필요한 부분(배당, 이자, 고정사업장 등)만 볼 수 있습니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | 검색 결과의 조약 id → 본문 | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| keyword | No | 본문 중 이 말이 든 부분만 (예: 배당, 고정사업장) |
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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: country queries are filtered to treaties, and keyword returns only matching excerpts of the body rather than the full text. It says nothing about pagination, result limits, or response shape.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary lookup mode and immediately followed by the id-based read mode. Every clause carries information; only the trailing keyword clause is slightly belabored by its three examples.
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 five-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the main retrieval paths well but omits pagination behavior (limit/cursor) and any hint about the shape of returned results. An agent would know how to search but not how to page through large result sets.
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 40%, so the description must compensate. It explains query (country name), id (body lookup), and keyword (substring filter on the body), which is solid for three of five parameters, but limit and cursor receive no explanation anywhere, leaving pagination semantics opaque.
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 a specific resource (조세조약/이중과세방지협약) and two concrete operations: lookup by country name and body retrieval by id, with worked examples (미국, 베트남, 일본). It also states that country-name queries are restricted to tax treaties only, which implicitly separates it from find_statute. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly.
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 clearly explains the two invocation modes — pass a country name to get a filtered treaty list, or pass an id to read the body — and gives keyword examples (배당, 이자, 고정사업장) for narrowing within the body. No explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing is given, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.