Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

contract-compass

by app.sallim
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

판례·해석례 본문

get_case
Read-onlyIdempotent

판례/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).

**`error:"case_body_unavailable"`이면 `source_url`은 null이고 `existence_verified`는
false다**(2026-09-04). 이건 "본문만 없다"가 아니다 — 우리는 ①본문 미제공(하급심·
국세청 등 타기관 제공)과 ②그런 일련번호가 없음을 **구분하지 못한다**(본문 API 응답이
같다). 그러니 **링크를 만들어 채우지 마라**: law.go.kr 뷰어는 없는 번호에도 200과 빈
페이지를 주므로 열린다는 것이 존재의 증거가 아니다. 이 case_id가 search_cases 결과에서
온 것이면 그 결과의 사건명·사건번호·source_url만 인용하고, 아니면 아무것도 인용하지
말고 search_cases로 다시 찾아라.

**`headnote_available:false`이면** law.go.kr이 판시사항·판결요지 중 하나 이상을 비워서 준 판결
(하급심 등 — 대법원 판결도 판결요지만 빈 경우가 있다. 그때 `headnote_partial:true`이고 온 쪽은
원천 그대로다)이다 — 어느 필드가 원천에서 비었는지는 `headnote_note`가 말한다(참조조문은
따로 올 수 있으니 `referenced_laws`가 있으면 그대로 써라). 쟁점은
`body_excerpt`(판결 전문 앞부분)에서 직접 읽고, 요지를 지어내지 마라.
`error:"case_id_invalid"`는 case_id가 숫자 일련번호가 아니라는 뜻이다(사건번호를
넣었으면 search_cases의 질의로 넣어라).

Args:
    kind: "prec" | "expc" (search_cases 결과의 kind)
    case_id: search_cases 결과의 case_id(숫자 일련번호)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes
case_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / kind / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "prec",
+  "expc"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: exact error codes and their meaning, that source_url/existence_verified are null/false on failure, that missing bodies cannot be distinguished from nonexistent IDs, and an explicit instruction not to fabricate citation links.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and nearly every sentence carries operational weight, but the heavy inline bolding and long parenthetical error discussion make it denser and less scannable than ideal.

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 steps in to name the key return fields (source_url, existence_verified, headnote_available, headnote_partial, headnote_note, body_excerpt, referenced_laws) and explains their semantics, so an agent has what it needs to interpret results and handle failures.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it defines kind as the enum drawn from search_cases results and case_id as the numeric serial number from search_cases, explicitly warning that a 사건번호 is not valid here.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('판례/해석례 본문 조회') and enumerates what it returns (판시사항·판결요지·참조조문 for prec; 질의요지·회답·이유 for expc). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from search_cases by requiring case_id from that sibling's results.

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?

Clearly states the precondition that case_id must come from a search_cases result and routes the agent back to search_cases if it does not. Error-specific guidance (case_body_unavailable, case_id_invalid) further directs behavior, though there is no general 'when not to use this tool' statement.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources