req_pcccRequest SMS verification to retrieve a Korean Personal Customs Clearance Code (PCCC). 개인통관고유부호 조회를 위한 본인 인증을 요청합니다. 인증번호 6자리가 문자(SMS)로 발송되며, 응답의 auth_key와 수신한 인증번호를 get_pccc Tool에 입력해 부호를 조회합니다. [호출당 30포인트]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 이름 | |
| rrn1 | Yes | 주민등록번호 앞 6자리 | |
| rrn2 | Yes | 주민등록번호 뒤 7자리 | |
| phone | Yes | 휴대전화 번호 (본인 명의, 숫자만) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, so the description carries the burden of explaining the side effects. It does this well by disclosing that a 6-digit SMS verification code is sent, an auth_key is returned, and the call costs 30 points—beyond what annotations provide.
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 is compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and then presents behavior, next steps, and cost efficiently. Minor redundancy exists between the English and Korean sentences restating the same purpose, preventing a perfect score.
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?
For a side-effecting tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what the SMS does, the 6-digit code, the auth_key in the response, the exact next tool to call (get_pccc), and the per-call cost. Sensitive parameters are already fully documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.
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%, so the input schema already documents name, rrn1, rrn2, and phone. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the general identity verification context, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific action verb ('Request SMS verification') tied to a concrete resource (Korean PCCC) and states the overall goal of retrieving the code. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the retrieval step by naming get_pccc as the follow-up tool, 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 gives clear context by outlining the two-step flow: call this tool to get an auth_key and SMS code, then pass them to get_pccc. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as check_pccc, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools target the same documents with unclear boundaries: identi_card_image1, ocr_identi1, and identity_document_id_card all accept a resident registration card image but differ in verification vs extraction vs masking, which agents will struggle to distinguish. The identi_card1-5 vs identi_card_image1-5 vs ocr_identi1-5 clusters are especially confusing, despite some helpful descriptions.
Naming is highly inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (check_phone_valid, search_juso, pdf_merge), some are bare nouns (whois, nslookup, ocr, stt), and identity tools use three parallel schemes (identi_card1, identi_card_image1, ocr_identi1, identity_document_id_card) with no clear pattern. No single convention is followed across the toolset.
88 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, spanning identity verification, parcel tracking, LLM chat, image generation, PDF conversion, TTS, and network lookups. This is an API marketplace dump rather than a focused toolset, and the number far exceeds any reasonable scope.
The server's scope is unbounded, so it has gaps everywhere: no video transcription shortcut, no PDF splitting, no batch cancellation for images (only TTS), and identity clusters lack clear differentiation between verify/extract/mask workflows. Some subdomains like TTS have a full lifecycle, but overall the coverage is scattered and incomplete for the implied breadth.