Fetches the full text of a specified Ulsan University track introduction page, including semester course layouts and module group names.
트랙소개서 한 쪽 전체 텍스트(2~3쪽: 대학별 트랙 운영 현황표). 이수체계도 쪽은 '2학년 1학기 … 4학년 2학기' 열 순서대로 과목이 한 줄에 놓여 있다(빈 칸은 건너뛰므로 열 위치는 대략). 맨 오른쪽 '…모듈'은 과목 묶음 이름.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes |
| 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. It adds useful behavioral context about the page text format, including that columns are approximate because blank cells are skipped and that the far-right '…module' label is a course bundle name. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, page-range behavior, or how this retrieval relates to the search 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?
The description front-loads the core purpose and then adds relevant layout details. It is compact and mostly earns its sentences, though the phrasing is dense and somewhat opaque for an agent unfamiliar with the source document.
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 has an output schema, so return-value details are not required in the description. The description adequately covers page content and text layout, but it omits usage context relative to track_search and does not fully specify page numbering, leaving some gaps for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare integer 'page' parameter. It does add meaning by indicating that the parameter selects one page of the track introduction and by mentioning pages 2–3 specifically, but it does not clarify page numbering rules or accepted page values.
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 clearly states that this tool returns the full text of one page from the track introduction, and it specifies what pages 2–3 contain. It is distinguishable from track_search by its page-oriented retrieval purpose, though it does not explicitly name the search sibling as an alternative.
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 description explains page content and layout but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus track_search or other siblings. There are no stated preconditions, exclusions, or workflow hints such as whether it should follow a track_search call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.