Search the 2026 Ulsan University track guide by keyword to find major track types, department tracks, curriculum maps, courses, and career paths.
2026 울산대 트랙소개서(258쪽 PDF, 홈페이지 MN355)에서 검색. 전공트랙 종류(기본·심화·통합·융복합·마이크로특화), 학부별 트랙, 이수체계도·교과목, 진로 등. 여러 단어는 모두 들어간 쪽만. 쪽 전체는 track_page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| keyword | 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 discloses the search corpus, page-level result granularity, and AND matching across terms, which are genuinely behavioral facts. It says nothing about result ordering, what the limit bounds, or how the downsized excerpts are shaped, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for an unannotated 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?
Dense but efficient: source document and location first, then scope, then matching semantics, then the escape hatch to track_page. Every clause carries information; only the raw menu ID 'MN355' is opaque without context.
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-value behavior need not be restated, and the document scope plus the track_page hand-off give an agent enough to call it correctly. The unexplained limit parameter is the one real omission.
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 does explain keyword semantics (all terms must appear on the same page) but never mentions the limit parameter or its default of 8. Partial compensation earns a middling score.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (search inside the 2026 Ulsan University track guide, a 258-page PDF at homepage MN355) and enumerates the covered content: track types, tracks by college, curriculum charts, courses, careers. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling track_page, which returns the whole page.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to track_page when the full page is needed, and explains that multi-word queries are treated as AND over page contents. It does not address when to prefer this over the generic site_search sibling, which is the remaining ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.