get_case판례/해석례 본문 조회 — 판시사항·판결요지·참조조문(판례) 또는 질의요지·회답·이유(해석례).
응답의 `source_url`은 국가법령정보센터 원문 주소다 — 판례·해석례를 인용할 때는
**이 링크를 함께 제시하라**(감사·보고서에서 근거를 되짚을 수 있어야 한다).
Args:
kind: "prec" | "expc" (search_cases 결과의 kind)
case_id: search_cases 결과의 case_id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| case_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that the response contains a source_url pointing to the National Law Information Center and instructing the agent to present this link when citing cases—useful information 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-structured: a one-line summary, a necessary citation instruction, and a concise Args mapping. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.
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 simple two-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what content the response includes, reveals the source_url behavior, and ties the parameters to the prior search_cases step. No major gap remains for an agent to invoke and use the result correctly.
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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does so by mapping kind to 'prec' | 'expc' and telling the agent to take both values from search_cases results, which is actionable guidance. It stops short of explicitly defining what prec and expc stand for, though the title and body imply '판례' and '해석례'.
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?
The description opens with a specific action and resource: '판례/해석례 본문 조회' (retrieve full case/interpretation text), and enumerates the content components (판시사항, 판결요지, 참조조문 or 질의요지, 회답, 이유). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_cases, which find cases, and get_law_article, which targets statutes.
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?
The Args section explicitly states that kind and case_id come from search_cases results, making it clear this tool is the follow-up retrieval step after a case search. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.