Skip to main content
Glama

APICK Identity

by app.apick
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

[Text] 주민등록등본 진위 확인

identi_card4
Read-only

Verify the authenticity of a Korean resident registration certificate (jumin-deungnok-deungbon) using text input. 주민등록등본·초본의 문서확인번호로 진위 여부를 확인합니다. 문서확인번호를 네 구획으로 나눈 doc_num1doc_num4(마지막 구획은 45자리)와 발급 종류 type(1: 온라인 발급, 2: 기타 발급)을 보냅니다. 정보주체의 동의 등 적법한 처리 근거를 확보한 경우에만 사용하십시오. [호출당 40포인트]

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYes발급 경로 구분 (1: 인터넷으로 발급한 등본, 2: 그 밖의 경로로 발급한 등본)
doc_num1Yes문서확인번호 1구획 (4자리)
doc_num2Yes문서확인번호 2구획 (4자리)
doc_num3Yes문서확인번호 3구획 (4자리)
doc_num4Yes문서확인번호 4구획 (4~5자리)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / name
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "성명",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / doc_num4 / description
      Previous value: -"문서확인번호 4구획 (4자리)"New value: +"문서확인번호 4구획 (4~5자리)"
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"발급 경로 구분 (1: 정부24에서 발급한 등본, 2: 그 밖의 경로로 발급한 등본)"New value: +"발급 경로 구분 (1: 인터넷으로 발급한 등본, 2: 그 밖의 경로로 발급한 등본)"
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"발급 종류 (1: 정부24 발급, 2: 기타 발급)"New value: +"발급 경로 구분 (1: 정부24에서 발급한 등본, 2: 그 밖의 경로로 발급한 등본)"
  5. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as a read-only, open-world operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by disclosing the 40-point per-call cost and the legal basis/consent precondition. It does not describe the result format or error behavior.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is relatively compact. It includes useful cost and legal-use notes, though the English and Korean text duplicate the same content.

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?

The description covers purpose, required input shape, cost, and legal precondition. Because there is no output schema, it should ideally explain what the verification response contains, and it also lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including segment sizes and type values. The description restates the same split-number and type mapping with little additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: verify the authenticity of a Korean resident registration certificate using text input. It identifies the document type and input mode, but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the many identi_card, identi_card_image, and ocr_identi siblings.

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 implies usage when a document confirmation number is available and a lawful basis such as consent has been secured. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternatives, such as image-based tools or other identi_card variants.

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

All APICK Identity toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources