Find Ulsan University campus building numbers and names by keyword, such as 7, engineering, library, or student center; leave blank to list all buildings.
캠퍼스 건물 번호·이름 찾기(예: '7', '공학', '도서관', '학생회관'). 비우면 전체 목록.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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; '찾기' implies a read-only lookup and the empty-keyword fallback to a full list is useful behavioral detail. It does not say whether matching is partial or exact, whether results are ordered or paged, or anything about access constraints – but for a one-parameter lookup on a public campus site these gaps are modest.
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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter default behavior appended. Nothing repeats the schema or wastes tokens.
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?
The tool takes one optional string, has an output schema (so return values need no explanation), and the description covers both purpose and the empty-parameter case. For a tool of this complexity there is little an agent still needs to know in order to call it correctly.
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 – and it does, explaining that the keyword can be a number or a name fragment, with four concrete example values, plus the default-empty behavior ('전체 목록'). Only exact matching semantics (substring vs. exact) remain unstated.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('캠퍼스 건물 번호·이름 찾기' – find campus building number/name) and gives concrete query examples ('7', '공학', '도서관', '학생회관'). The resource is distinct enough from the sibling list (meal, notices, departments, library_hours) that an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema, though no sibling is named 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 provides an explicit empty-input behavior ('비우면 전체 목록' – if blank, return the full list), which is real usage guidance for the single parameter. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over related siblings (e.g., departments or library_hours) or when not to call it, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.