get_relief_catalog_entryLook up one relief catalog entry by statute reference.
감면 카탈로그 한 건 조회 — "지특법 §36의5", "조특97의3" 같은 표기를 받는다.
screen_relief_candidates가 뽑아 준 후보의 원문 요지·감면율·기한을 다시 볼 때 쓴다.
여기 값도 C등급 기계추출이므로 확정 근거로 인용하면 안 된다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| article | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses a critical trust caveat: values are C등급 기계추출 and must not be cited as confirmed grounds. It also names the returned fields (요지, 감면율, 기한), which matters since there is no output schema.
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?
Front-loaded with a one-line English purpose, then workflow and data-quality caveat. Four short sentences, each doing work; nothing redundant, though the bilingual restatement is slightly duplicative.
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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no enums, the description supplies the missing pieces: input format examples, returned fields, and a data-trust warning. Only the behavior on a missing/invalid article is unaddressed.
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 coverage is 0% for the single 'article' parameter, so the description carries the burden and does so by giving concrete accepted notations ('지특법 §36의5', '조특97의3'). It stops short of stating validation rules or failure behavior for unrecognized formats.
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?
States a precise verb and resource ('look up one relief catalog entry by statute reference') and identifies its role relative to the sibling screen_relief_candidates. An agent can distinguish it from search_law, get_law_detail, and the judge_* tools without opening any schema.
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?
Explicitly states the workflow trigger: use it to re-examine the 원문 요지·감면율·기한 of candidates that screen_relief_candidates produced. It names the sibling it follows but gives no explicit 'when not to use' or what to do if the article is not in the catalog.
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.