Skip to main content
Glama

Home plus pre-sale right (portfolio)

judge_156_3_from_portfolio
Read-onlyIdempotent

Same as judge_156_3_special, but counts homes from a holdings list.

보유 목록만 넣으면 §156의3 특례를 판정한다 — 주택수를 코드가 센다.

judge_156_3_special을 직접 쓰면 other_homes·excluded_homes를 사람이 채워야 하고,
빠뜨리면 조용히 '1주택+1분양권'으로 가정하고 답한다. **상담에서는 이 툴을 먼저
쓸 것.** count_transfer_homes와 같은 items 규약을 받아 종전주택·분양권·나머지
주택수를 세고, 농어촌주택·상속주택 등 제외 특례를 자동 반영한다.

반환의 '주택수산정'에 무엇을 몇 채로 셌는지와 제외 사유가 들어 있으니, 결론보다
그것을 먼저 확인할 것 — 목록 자체가 틀리면 판정도 틀린다.

Args:
    items: 보유 자산 목록. 각 원소는 count_transfer_homes 규약을 따른다 —
        {"종류": "주택"|"분양권"|"조합원입주권"|"오피스텔", "취득일": "YYYY-MM-DD",
         "라벨": str, "농어촌주택특례": bool, "상속특례주택": bool, ...}.
        **양도할 주택 하나에 "양도대상": True를 표시해야 한다.**
        분양권 취득일은 청약당첨일이 아니라 분양계약일(대법원 2024두54560).
    sale_date: 종전주택 양도일 YYYY-MM-DD
    new_home_completed: 분양권으로 취득하는 주택의 완성일 (③항 판정에 필요)
    moved_in_date: 신축주택으로 세대전원이 이사한 날
    continuous_residence_years: 신축주택 계속거주 기간(년)
    holding_waiver_reason: ""|건설임대5년거주|수용|해외이주2년|취학근무국외|부득이1년거주
    sale_delay_reason: ""|캠코매각의뢰|법원경매신청|공매진행 (규칙 §75① 열거 3가지)
    delay_state_at_3y: 분양권 취득일부터 3년이 되는 날 현재 그 상태였는지
    sold_by_that_method: 실제로 그 방법으로 양도됐는지
    partial_move_reason: ""|취학|근무|질병|학교폭력

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes
sale_dateYes
moved_in_dateNo
delay_state_at_3yNo
sale_delay_reasonNo
new_home_completedNo
partial_move_reasonNo
sold_by_that_methodNo
holding_waiver_reasonNo
continuous_residence_yearsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral value: it discloses that exclusions (rural, inherited homes) are auto-applied, describes the returned '주택수산정' field containing counts and exclusion reasons, and instructs the agent to verify that before the conclusion. The failure-mode warning about the sibling tool further disambiguates 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?

Front-loaded with the sibling distinction, then usage guidance, then args. Every section is load-bearing, though the English and Korean statements of the same sibling relationship are mildly redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 10-parameter legal-judgment tool with no output schema and zero schema documentation, the description covers the argument conventions, the required flag, enum options, auto-applied exclusions, and even the return payload structure. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full parameter burden and does so thoroughly: it documents the items element structure, the mandatory '양도대상' flag, the pre-sale acquisition-date rule with a court citation, and enumerates allowed values for holding_waiver_reason, sale_delay_reason, and partial_move_reason — none of which the schema provides.

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 opening line states a precise verb+resource ('judges the §156-3 special case by counting homes from a holdings list') and immediately contrasts it with the sibling judge_156_3_special. An agent can tell the difference between the two without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly directs 'use this tool first in consultations' and explains why the alternative (judge_156_3_special) is riskier: it requires manual other_homes/excluded_homes and silently assumes '1 home + 1 pre-sale right' if omitted. This names both the recommended tool and the failure mode of the alternative.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources