search_bus_routeFind a Daegu bus route ID by entering the bus number, such as '805' or '급행1'. Use this step first to get the routeId needed before checking bus locations.
버스 번호로 노선 ID(routeId)를 찾는다. get_bus_location을 쓰기 전에 먼저 호출해서 routeId를 확보한다. 예: '급행1', '805' 같은 노선번호로 검색.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 최대 건수 (기본 5) | |
| query | Yes | 노선 번호 (예: '805', '급행1') |
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 disclosure burden. It conveys the core behavior (read-only route lookup yielding a routeId) and its role as a prerequisite. However, it omits edge-case behavior: what happens with ambiguous matches, no matches, or partial input, and the response format. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage this is a moderate gap.
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 tightly packed sentences in Korean with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the usage pattern and concrete examples. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Complete for a simple 2-parameter lookup tool: purpose, prerequisite workflow, and input examples are all covered, and the schema documents both parameters. The only omissions are return format and ambiguous-match handling, which are minor given no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward.
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 100% - both query and limit have inline descriptions in the schema. The description reinforces the query semantics with the same examples ('급행1', '805') already in the schema, adding the workflow context that query maps to routeId. It doesn't meaningfully expand on the limit parameter beyond the schema's default-5 note, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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+resource ('버스 번호로 노선 ID(routeId)를 찾는다' - finds routeId by bus number) and gives concrete input examples ('급행1', '805'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_bus_stop (stop search) and get_bus_arrivals (arrivals) by clarifying it's the routeId lookup step, so an agent can tell them apart.
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 explicitly states when to use it: 'get_bus_location을 쓰기 전에 먼저 호출해서 routeId를 확보한다' (call before get_bus_location to secure routeId). This establishes a clear prerequisite workflow. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.