Skip to main content
Glama

오류 제보·질문 기록

report_issue

오류·개선 제보, 그리고 원문 질문 기록(category="question_log").

**제보**: 사용자가 "틀렸다"고 지적하면 **먼저 이 도구로 제보한 뒤** 정정 답을 제시하라.
도구 결과가 조문·수치·판례와 명백히 불일치할 때도 제보하라. 추측으로 부르지 말 것.
서버가 직전 도구 호출 기록을 자동 첨부하므로 도구명·인자를 기억으로 적을 필요 없다.

**원문 질문 기록**(`category="question_log"`): 이 서버는 네가 이미 도구 호출로 번역한
뒤를 본다 — **사용자가 실제로 무엇을 물었는지 볼 수 없다.** "관공서 물품 살 때 수의계약
얼마까지 되나요?"가 `search_law(query="수의계약")`로 도착하면, 질문에 있던 '관공서'·
'물품 구매'라는 맥락은 우리에게 영영 안 남는다. 그 원문이 질문은행·평가셋·로드맵의
유일한 원천이다.
**응답이 `hint`로 기록을 요청하면 그때 남겨라** — 0건·범위 밖·부분 답변이 그런 자리다.
네가 스스로 "잘 답했다"고 느낀 경우까지 남길 필요는 없다. `message`에 원문을 넣되
**개인 식별 조합은 일반형으로 바꿔서** 넣는다(기관명·사건번호·금액 조합 등).

Args:
    category: "wrong_citation"(오인용) | "outdated_law"(개정 미반영) |
        "wrong_ruling"(룰엔진 오판정) | "tool_error"(도구 오류) |
        "feature_request"(기능 요청) | "question_log"(원문 질문 기록) | "other"
    message: 무엇이 어떻게 잘못됐는지 구체적으로. **question_log이면 사용자의 원문 질문**
    related_tool: 문제가 난 도구명 (예: "search_references")
    related_query: 문제를 재현하는 질의·입력
    expected: 올바르다고 생각하는 값·조문 (알고 있다면)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYes
categoryYes
expectedNo
related_toolNo
related_queryNo

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

It discloses important behavior beyond annotations: the server auto-attaches the previous tool call, the server cannot see the user's original question, and personal identifying combinations should be generalized in messages. This adds real context and contradicts nothing in 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-structured with bolded leads and clear sections. Every section adds necessary policy or parameter context, though it could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

For a reporting/logging tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, exclusive triggers, category meanings, privacy handling, and server-side behavior. No critical invocation context is missing.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: enum meanings for category, message semantics per category, and examples for related_tool, related_query, and expected. This is far above the schema alone.

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?

The description clearly states the tool is for reporting errors/improvements and logging original questions (category='question_log'). It uses specific verbs and distinguishes itself from legal research siblings like search_law and get_case.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use instructions: report first when the user says something is wrong, report when tool results conflict with statutes/numbers/precedents, and log question_log only when a hint requests it, not when the agent feels it answered well.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: calculation tools (check_price_adjustment, estimate_delay_penalty, decide_contract_method), reference tools (get_law_article, get_case), and search tools. The only potential confusion is between search_law and search_references since both cover statutes, but their descriptions explicitly delineate scope (statutes-only vs. statutes+guidelines+rulings).

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (check_price_adjustment, estimate_delay_penalty, get_law_article, search_cases). One outlier is delay_exemption_guide, which uses a noun-led pattern rather than a verb-led one, but it is still readable and consistent in style.

Tool Count5/5

Eleven tools is well within the ideal range for a specialized legal advisory server. Each tool covers a distinct function: rule-based determinations, calculations, legal research, historical lookup, case retrieval, and issue reporting. No tool feels redundant or superfluous.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the core advisory workflow well: searching statutes, guidelines, and cases; retrieving full texts and historical versions; and performing key calculations for price adjustments and delay penalties. Minor gaps exist such as calculators for other contract lifecycle adjustments, but those are reasonably addressable through the search and reference tools.