Skip to main content
Glama

contract-compass

by app.sallim

판례·해석례 검색

search_cases
Read-onlyIdempotent

판례·법령해석례 검색 — law.go.kr 실시간 조회(항상 현행). LLM 미사용.

분쟁·처분취소·해석 다툼("~해도 되나", "~취소될 수 있나")에 조문만으로 부족할 때
쓰라. 본문은 get_case(kind, case_id)로 이어서 조회.

**응답은 무엇으로 몇 건을 봤는지까지 말한다**(2026-08-29). `search_scope`가
"title"이면 사건명·안건명만, "body"면 본문까지 본 것이다. `searched`에 시도한
질의·범위·law.go.kr 총계(`total_cnt`)가 시도 순서대로 실리고, 넓혀서 다시 찾았으면
`retried`가 true다. **0건은 "그런 판례가 없다"가 아니라 "이 범위에서 못 찾았다"이다**
— 사용자에게 옮길 때 `searched`가 밝힌 범위를 함께 말하고 "판례가 없다"고 단정하지 마라.

Args:
    query: 핵심 명사 위주 검색어 (예: "부정당업자 제한", "유찰 수의계약").
        자연어 한 문장도 받는다 — 사건명으로 0건이면 핵심어·본문 범위로 자동
        재시도한다(최대 2회).
    top_k: 종류당 반환 건수 (기본 5, 최대 10)
    kind: "prec"(법원 판례) | "expc"(법제처 법령해석례) | "all"(둘 다, 기본)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoall
queryYes
top_kNo

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior; the description adds substantial extra context: real-time law.go.kr lookup, automatic retry up to 2 times, response scoping semantics via search_scope, searched/total_cnt/retried, and the anti-hallucination caveat about 0 results. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and densely packed with useful operational detail. It is slightly long and includes a hardcoded date and a heavy response-behavior paragraph, but every major sentence contributes value.

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 compensates well by explaining response metadata, retry behavior, query semantics, and the get_case follow-up route. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 succeeds: query is explained with examples and natural-language acceptance, top_k is defined as per-kind count with default and max, and kind values prec/expc/all are expanded clearly.

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?

States a specific action and resource: searching precedents and statutory interpretation rulings on law.go.kr, and explicitly labels the domain as '판례·법령해석례'. It also distinguishes itself from the follow-up tool get_case, making the purpose clear and sibling-differentiating.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use condition: when disputes, cancellations, or interpretation questions cannot be answered by statutory text alone. It also instructs that full-text follow-up should use get_case(kind, case_id), but it does not explicitly name or exclude the other sibling search tools.

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