Skip to main content
Glama

korea-realty

by app.sallim

경매 유찰 이력·가격 저감·사진

realty_auction_history
Read-onlyIdempotent

경매 사건의 유찰 이력(기일별 최저가 저감 시계열)·가격 변동 이벤트·물건 사진 URL을 조회한다. "몇 번 유찰됐어? 얼마나 떨어진 거야? 사진 있어?"류 질문의 담당 도구. 사진은 법원 원천에서 기일 후 소멸해 수집 시점 보존본만 존재한다(국내 공개 API에 드문 축).

court_schedule에서 result='유찰'인 행이 유찰 이력, min_bid_10k의 저감이 가격 흐름이다.
result가 null인 행은 미래 기일이거나 미해독 법원 코드(result_code 원문 병기)다 —
의미를 지어내지 말고 그대로 전하라. **최저가(min_bid_10k)가 없는 행에는 `kind_note`가
붙는다 — 그 행은 입찰 기일이 아니다**(원천 전수에서 최저가·유찰 표기는 kind_code=01에만
붙는다). fail_count가 기일표의 유찰 행 수와 다르면 `fail_count_note`가 그 이유를 댄다
(출처가 목록 원천 vs 기일표로 갈린다) — 둘을 합쳐 세지 마라. tracking·price_events는 2026-07-23 이후 일일
스냅샷 비교분이라 비어 있을 수 있다(비어 있음 ≠ 변동 없음, court_schedule이 정본).
⚠️ court_schedule이 빈 물건(기일표 미수집)의 `current_min_bid_10k`는 건별
`min_bid_source`를 봐야 한다 — item_list면 낡았을 수 있어 min_bid_note가 함께 온다.
그 경우 현재 최저가를 단정하지 말고 note를 사용자에게 전하라(목록·상세와 같은 경고).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
case_noYes사건번호 — `2026타경3571` 꼴이다(연도 4자리 + '타경' + 일련번호 3~6자리). 원장 전수가 '타경' 접두이고 '2024타경101026'처럼 6자리도 있다. '2026-3571'·'3571'처럼 접두 없이 넣지 마라
court_nameNo법원명 — '서울동부지방법원'·'인천지방법원'처럼 정식명으로 넣는다('진주지원'처럼 지원명만인 행도 있다). 사건번호는 법원 간 유일하지 않아(전국 평균 2.8개 법원에서 중복) 생략하면 후보 목록이 돌아온다

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description provides substantial behavioral caveats: preservation limits of photos, null-row semantics, `fail_count` discrepancy rules, possible empty `tracking`/`price_events`, and the `min_bid_source` warning. These are exactly the kind of quirks an agent must know before interpreting results. No contradiction with the readOnly/intent 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 dense but every paragraph conveys a necessary behavioral or interpretive constraint. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds important caveats in an organized way. It is long, yet the information density justifies almost every sentence.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, this description does an unusually thorough job of making interpretation independent of hidden knowledge. It explains how to identify 유찰 records, how to handle null rows, how to treat disagreement with `fail_count`, and how to interpret `current_min_bid_10k` when `court_schedule` is empty. An agent has enough context to avoid a whole class of errors.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the tool description itself does not add new meaning to `case_no` or `court_name` beyond what the schema already provides. Per the guidance, a baseline of 3 applies when parameters are fully documented in an external schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states a specific verb+resource 관계: '유찰 이력(기일별 최저가 저감 시계열)·가격 변동 이벤트·물건 사진 URL을 조회한다' and maps it to a concrete user question class. The scope is clear and easily understood. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like realty_get_auction_case or realty_search_auctions, so no direct sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear usage context by showing example questions and calling it the '담당 도구' for those questions, so an agent can infer when to call it. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool or when not to use this one, so it falls short of the 5-level criterion.

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

All korea-realty 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The set has very explicit cross-tool guidance and each tool is often given a specific 'role', but there are still many overlapping clusters: auction search vs auction list vs auction detail, regional price bands vs price stats vs rankings, and court auction rate vs public auction rate. The descriptions reduce misselection, but with 51 tools including pairs like `fetch` and `realty_get_auction_case`, confusion is still likely for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clean `realty_` prefix and use consistent snake_case noun-phrases or verb-noun patterns, e.g. `realty_search_auctions`, `realty_get_auction_case`, `realty_presale_cost`. The exceptions are the generic `fetch`, `search`, and `report_issue`, which break the uniform prefixed convention but are only a small minor deviation from an otherwise consistent naming system.

Tool Count1/5

51 tools far exceeds the recommended threshold, even for a deliberately broad real-estate area; it is effectively an extreme number for a single MCP server. The tool count becomes the hardest usability problem, since agents must handle many tightly related micro-tools instead of interacting with a smaller, more manageable surface.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers an impressively complete range: auction and public-auction workflows, apartment and non-apartment market, presale/cheongyak processes, tax and loan rules, subscription scoring, redevelopment, demographics, supply, POI, and even a reporting and routing tool. Boundaries and unsupported cases are explicitly documented, so there are no major obvious dead ends.

Resources