Retrieve Ulsan University academic schedules by year or keyword, returning 15 upcoming events after today when no keyword is provided.
학사일정. keyword(예: '기말', '수강신청', '휴학')가 없으면 오늘 이후 일정 15개.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | ||
| keyword | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the schema: with no keyword it returns the 15 most recent upcoming events after today. It says nothing about pagination, ordering beyond 'after today', how many results a keyword search returns, or failure behavior.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and then the default behavior; nothing is padded. The terseness borders on under-specification, but no sentence is wasted.
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 described, and the default-result rule is covered. Still, with no annotations and an undocumented 'year' parameter, an agent cannot confidently call this with a specific year or know what a keyword search returns.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'keyword' well with concrete example values, but 'year' is never mentioned despite its cryptic default of 0 (current year? all years?), leaving a genuinely ambiguous sentinel undocumented.
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?
'학사일정' (academic schedule) names the resource precisely and the second sentence specifies the default retrieval behavior (15 events after today). The verb is implicit and no sibling (e.g., notices, dept_notices, library_hours) is named as an alternative, so an agent can tell what it fetches but gets no explicit disambiguation.
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 keyword examples ('기말', '수강신청', '휴학') implicitly show when to pass a filter versus omitting it, and the no-keyword case is spelled out. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative tool for related needs like general notices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.