Skip to main content
Glama

contract-compass

by build.naru
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·판결요지를 비워서 준 판결
(하급심 등)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

TableJSON 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?

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by documenting failure modes (case_body_unavailable, case_id_invalid), the meaning of existence_verified=false and source_url=null, the inability to distinguish 'not provided' from 'does not exist', and the trap that a 200 from the law.go.kr viewer proves nothing. It even prescribes a non-fabrication policy for 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 and return fields are front-loaded, then error semantics follow in a logical order. The heavy bolding and some restatement ('이건 본문만 없다가 아니다') add length, but nearly every sentence carries operational information given the error-handling surface.

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 fully carries the burden: it names the return fields (source_url, existence_verified, headnote_available, headnote_note, referenced_laws, body_excerpt), explains when each is empty, and tells the agent how to proceed in each case. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters, and it does: kind is the 'prec'|'expc' value from search_cases output, and case_id is a numeric serial number, with the note that a case number (사건번호) is not valid here. It compensates for the coverage gap without giving format examples.

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 verb+resource ('판례/해석례 본문 조회') and enumerates the exact fields returned for each kind (판시사항·판결요지·참조조문 vs 질의요지·회답·이유). This clearly separates it from sibling search_cases, which finds cases rather than returning their body.

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?

Explicitly anchors the tool to search_cases output ('case_id: search_cases 결과의 case_id') and routes back to search_cases when case_body_unavailable or case_id_invalid occurs, including the specific workaround of passing a case number as a query. It does not spell out a clean when-to-use/when-not sentence, but the conditions are unambiguous.

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