Skip to main content
Glama

APICK

by app.apick

[Text] 주민등록등본 진위 확인

identi_card4
Read-only

Verify the authenticity of a Korean resident registration certificate (jumin-deungnok-deungbon) using text input. 주민등록등본의 문서확인번호로 진위 여부를 확인합니다. 문서확인번호 16자리를 4자리씩 나눈 doc_num1~doc_num4와 발급 종류 type(1: 정부24 발급, 2: 기타 발급)은 필수이며, name(성명)은 선택 입력입니다. 정보주체의 동의 등 적법한 처리 근거를 확보한 경우에만 사용하십시오. [호출당 40포인트]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo성명
typeYes발급 종류 (1: 정부24 발급, 2: 기타 발급)
doc_num1Yes문서확인번호 1구획 (4자리)
doc_num2Yes문서확인번호 2구획 (4자리)
doc_num3Yes문서확인번호 3구획 (4자리)
doc_num4Yes문서확인번호 4구획 (4자리)

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds useful context beyond the readOnlyHint: it mentions a cost of 40 points per call and a legal compliance requirement. This is extra behavioral information without contradicting the annotations. It does not describe the return format or failure behavior, but annotations already cover the read-only nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by parameter and legal details. There is some English/Korean redundancy, but it remains scannable and each sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple verification tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, required parameters, legal basis, and cost. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., whether it returns a boolean or detailed result) or how errors are handled, which is a notable gap given the lack of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the schema's information (required fields, type meanings, optional name) without adding new semantic detail, so no score above baseline is earned.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'verify' and the resource 'Korean resident registration certificate', and specifies the input method 'text input'. This distinguishes it from image-based sibling tools like identi_card_image1, making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear legal usage condition ('only when there is a lawful basis such as consent') and lists required/optional parameters, which are helpful. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools (e.g., identi_card_image1 or identity_document_*), providing only implied differentiation via 'text input'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All APICK toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes; even within families like identi_card1-5 vs identi_card_image1-5, the text-input vs image-input distinction is clear. However, the sheer number of tools and some near-synonyms (e.g., ocr_identi1 vs identi_card_image1) could cause occasional misselection, but descriptions mitigate this.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming follows a loose verb-first pattern (check_, crawl_, download_, draw_, etc.) but includes significant deviations: bare nouns (bank_code, location, whois), numbered variants (identi_card1, identi_card_image1), and mixed prefixes (ocr_, identity_, etc.). The inconsistency is noticeable but still readable and predictable within functional clusters.

Tool Count3/5

80 tools is far above the typical 3-15, but the server is a broad API aggregator covering many independent domains (banking, ID verification, media conversion, search, LLM, etc.), so the high count is somewhat justified. Still, the sheer number makes the toolkit feel unwieldy and hard to navigate, placing it at the high end of acceptable.

Completeness4/5

Within its stated purpose as a general-purpose utility API, the toolset covers a wide array of common task families: identity document verification (text and image), OCR field extraction, media conversion, web/search, domain/IP lookup, and LLM chat. Most operations have both get and act variants (e.g., set/get watermark, parcel_tracking/auto), with few obvious dead ends for typical use cases.

Resources