Retrieve department homepage notice lists by department, with optional board, keyword, and page filters for Ulsan University announcements.
학부·학과 홈페이지 공지 목록. dept 예: 'ICT융합학부', '산업경영공학부', '전기전자공학전공'. board는 그 사이트에 공지 게시판이 여럿일 때(예: '대학원', '취업') 고른다. [번호]는 dept_notice_detail로.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dept | Yes | ||
| page | No | ||
| board | No | ||
| limit | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it implicitly establishes a read-only listing and hints that results carry numbered items ('[번호]') that feed dept_notice_detail. It says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or how many results come back per call, which matters for a paginated list tool.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct piece of information (what it lists, how to pick a board, where details go). No filler, and the handoff note is placed last where it belongs.
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 formatting needn't be explained. Still, for a 5-parameter paginated tool with zero schema descriptions, the description leaves keyword/page/limit semantics and the dept-vs-generic-notices distinction unresolved.
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 gives concrete dept examples ('ICT융합학부', '산업경영공학부') and explains what board selects. The remaining three parameters (page, limit, keyword) get no mention at all, leaving half the surface to the bare schema.
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 the resource precisely ('학부·학과 홈페이지 공지 목록') and explicitly hands off detail lookups to the sibling dept_notice_detail. The listing verb is only implied by '목록', but the resource and scope are unambiguous.
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 explains when the optional board parameter matters ('게시판이 여럿일 때') and routes numbered items to dept_notice_detail, which is real routing guidance. However, it never distinguishes this from the generic sibling 'notices' or 'dept_site', which is the main alternative an agent must choose between.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.