Retrieve Ulsan University cafeteria menus for a chosen date (today, tomorrow, weekday, or YYYY-MM-DD) and cafeteria type (student, faculty, or dormitory).
학식 메뉴. date는 '오늘'/'내일'/'금요일'(이번 주)/'YYYY-MM-DD', cafeteria는 학생·교직원·기숙사. 운영시간은 site_page('MN134'). 학생식당은 기숙사식당(무거관)으로 옮겨 같은 메뉴다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | 오늘 | |
| cafeteria | No | 학생 |
| 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 exist, so the description carries the burden alone. It discloses a useful quirk — the student cafeteria has moved to the dormitory cafeteria (무거관) with the same menu — but does not state read-only nature explicitly, nor caching, language, or availability behavior beyond that note.
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, dense sentences with the resource named first and parameter guidance following. Every clause carries information, though the cafeteria-relocation note is slightly tangential to invoking the tool.
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. Two optional parameters are fully explained and the hours use-case is routed elsewhere; only the default-parameter behavior and language of results remain unstated.
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 supply meaning, and it does: it enumerates the accepted date forms and the cafeteria categories (학생·교직원·기숙사). It does not explain the default behavior when parameters are omitted, which keeps it below a 5.
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 opens with '학식 메뉴' (cafeteria menu), a specific resource, and the date/cafeteria values make it clear this retrieves menu listings. It is distinguishable from siblings like job_detail or library_hours, though no sibling is named as a contrast.
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 explicitly tells the agent which date values are accepted (오늘/내일/금요일/YYYY-MM-DD) and which cafeteria values apply, plus routes operating-hours questions to site_page('MN134'). There is no explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the alternative route for hours is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.