Skip to main content
Glama

contract-compass

by app.sallim

계약방법 판정

decide_contract_method
Read-onlyIdempotent

계약방법 결정론 판정 — 룰엔진이 적용 가능한 계약방법 후보와 법령 근거를 반환.

Args:
    contract_type: "construction"(공사) | "service"(용역) | "product"(물품)
    estimated_price: 추정가격(원)
    org_type: "national"(국가기관) | "local"(지자체) | "public_corp"(공기업·준정부, 기본)
    service_type: 용역일 때 "technical"|"academic"|"facility"|"it_service"|"other"
    construction_specialty: 공사일 때 "general"(종합)|"electrical"|"ict"|"fire_safety" 등
    is_sme_competition_product: 중소기업자간 경쟁제품 여부
    negotiation_reason: 수의 사유 "urgent"|"rebid_failure"|"technical_difficulty"|
        "patent_new_tech"|"specific_person"|"small_repeat"|"other_justified"
    is_women_enterprise: 여성기업 여부 — 지자체 물품·용역 2천만원 초과 1억원 이하
        수의계약(시행령 제25조제1항제5호바목) 판정에 필요. 사용자가 "여성기업",
        "장애인기업", "사회적기업"이라고 말하면 **반드시 해당 플래그를 세워라** —
        빠뜨리면 수의계약 후보가 통째로 빠지고 경쟁입찰만 제시된다.
    is_disabled_enterprise: 장애인기업 여부 (위와 같은 목)
    is_social_enterprise: 사회적기업·사회적협동조합·자활기업·마을기업 여부 (위와 같은 목).
        이 유형은 행정안전부 고시 취약계층 고용비율 충족이 추가 요건이다.
    is_youth_startup: 청년창업기업 여부 — 물품·용역 2천만원 초과 5천만원 이하
        수의계약(지방 제5호 다목 / 국가 시행령 제26조①5호가목7, 중소기업창업
        지원법 제2조제11호)
    is_small_enterprise: 상대방이 소기업·소상공인인지 여부 — 2천만원 초과 1억원
        이하 수의계약(국가 시행령 제26조①5호가목3 / 지방 시행령 제25조①5호라목)
        판정에 필요. **주의: 국가·공기업 2천만원 초과~1억원 이하는 무조건
        소액수의가 아니다** — 소기업·소상공인/특수 지식·기술(academic)/여성·
        장애인·사회적기업/청년창업(5천만 이하) 요건 충족 시에만 수의 가능하므로,
        해당하면 플래그를 세워라. 미충족이면 경쟁입찰이 원칙이다.
    follow_up_answers: **후속질문 답변** — 이 도구를 한 번 부르면 `follow_up_questions`가
        함께 온다(제한경쟁·공동도급 등 판정을 바꾸는 조건). 사용자에게 물어 답을 얻었으면
        같은 인자에 이것만 더해 **다시 부르면 `final_recommendation`(최종 계약방법)이
        온다.** 형식은 `{질문id: true/false 또는 값}` (예: `{"regional_restriction": true,
        "joint_contract": true}`). 세션 id를 들고 다닐 필요가 없다 — 서버가 같은 호출
        안에서 1단계·2단계를 이어 판정한다. 답을 모르면 넣지 마라(추측 금지).
    selected_rule_id: 후보 중 사용자가 고른 룰 id(예: "SVC_004"). 후보에 없으면 무시되고
        그 사실이 `final_recommendation.selection_ignored_reason`에 적힌다.
    selected_alternative_kind: `practice_alternatives`에서 사용자가 고른 실무 옵션의 kind.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
org_typeNopublic_corp
project_nameNoMCP 조회
service_typeNo
contract_typeYes
estimated_priceYes
is_youth_startupNo
selected_rule_idNo
follow_up_answersNo
negotiation_reasonNo
is_small_enterpriseNo
is_women_enterpriseNo
is_social_enterpriseNo
construction_specialtyNo
is_disabled_enterpriseNo
selected_alternative_kindNo
is_sme_competition_productNo

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the two-stage decision flow, the behavior of selected_rule_id when invalid (selection_ignored_reason), and the critical consequence of omitting enterprise flags (negotiation candidates disappear). This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 long but appropriately so for a 16-parameter legal rule engine. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically walks through each argument with necessary legal context and warnings. No sentence is wasted; the length is justified by the complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return concepts: candidates, legal basis, follow_up_questions, final_recommendation, and selection_ignored_reason. It also covers the two-stage invocation model and the conditional logic for enterprise flags. For a tool of this complexity, the description is remarkably complete.

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 burden—and it delivers. Every meaningful parameter is explained with allowed values, legal references, conditional relevance, and warnings (e.g., is_small_enterprise, is_women_enterprise, follow_up_answers). This far exceeds the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '계약방법 결정론 판정 — 룰엔진이 적용 가능한 계약방법 후보와 법령 근거를 반환' (rule engine returns applicable contract method candidates and legal basis). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_law or estimate_delay_penalty, which address different legal/calculation tasks.

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 provides clear workflow guidance: call once to get follow_up_questions, ask the user, then call again with follow_up_answers to receive final_recommendation. It also warns against guessing answers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All contract-compass 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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct role: decision-rules, price adjustment, delay penalties, exemption guidance, statute retrieval, case retrieval, and three specialized search tools. search_law, search_references, and search_cases look similar at first glance, but their descriptions clearly separate statutory text, full reference corpus, and caselaw/interpretation. The main ambiguity is between search_law and search_references for mixed practical queries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_price_adjustment, decide_contract_method, estimate_delay_penalty, get_law_article, search_references. delay_exemption_guide is the one name that leads with a noun rather than a verb, and get_law_article_asof adds an as-of suffix that is not mirrored elsewhere, but the overall style remains predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Eleven tools are well-scoped for a Korean public-contract advisory server: three rule calculators, one exemption guide, paired search/retrieval tools, an as-of law lookup, and a feedback/question-log tool. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither bloated nor too thin.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the main contract lifecycle well: selecting contract method, price escalation, delay penalty calculation, and delay exemption guidance, backed by statutes, references, and caselaw retrieval. Some narrower lifecycle aspects such as termination, sanctions, or post-award administration are only reachable through general search rather than dedicated decision tools, which is a minor gap agents can work around.

Resources