Skip to main content
Glama

APICK Identity

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: legal processing basis is required and each call costs 40 points, which is beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded with an English summary, followed by a Korean explanation. It includes the cost note and legal requirement in just a few sentences, with no redundant or filler 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return format or success/failure behavior, but it does not. It adequately covers input parameters and usage conditions, but the missing output information leaves a gap for an AI agent invoking the tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the same parameter meanings (e.g., doc_num1-4 are 4-digit segments, type meanings) without adding new semantic details beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Verify the authenticity of a Korean resident registration certificate' and specifies the input method (text input), clearly distinguishing it from image-based siblings like identi_card_image1. It also mentions the specific document confirmation number and issuance type, making the purpose highly specific.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description states required parameters (doc_num1-4, type) and that name is optional, plus the legal basis requirement for usage. It implies text input rather than image input, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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
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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: masking (hide_rrn), text-based verification (identi_cardN), image-based verification (identi_card_imageN), extraction with masking (identity_document_*), and name/RRN matching (name_rrn_auth). Within each group, the document type is clearly specified, so there is no ambiguity between tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming follows clear patterns: identi_card* for verification (with _image for image-based), identity_document_* for extraction, and descriptive names like hide_rrn and name_rrn_auth. While the prefixes differ across functional groups, each group is internally consistent and the names are readable and predictable.

Tool Count4/5

16 tools is on the higher end but appropriate for the server's scope, covering five document types with two verification modes (text and image), four extraction/masking tools, a generic masking tool, and a name/RRN auth check. Each tool fills a needed role, though the number is slightly elevated due to the text/image split.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core operations for identity document verification and extraction across all major Korean ID types. A minor gap is the lack of an extraction/masking tool for the resident registration certificate (identi_card4), but this is not a critical omission given the existing verification and masking capabilities.

Resources