Skip to main content
Glama

contract-compass

by build.naru

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 indicate a safe read-only operation; the description adds substantial value: live law.go.kr data, no LLM generation, search-scope semantics, retry behavior, total_cnt, and the crucial caveat that zero results means not-found-in-scope rather than nonexistence. 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 dense but organized: purpose and use-case first, response-behavior caveats second, and a clear Args block. The parenthetical date and a few redundant emphases add mild noise, but every section carries functional information.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers what the response reports, how scope affects results, how retries are signaled, and how to hand off to get_case. Sibling tools and annotations are leveraged; nothing essential to correct invocation appears 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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates: query gives search-term guidance and auto-retry behavior, top_k explains default/max per kind, and kind maps each enum value to plain-language meanings. An agent can choose parameters confidently without schema hints.

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 it searches precedents and statutory interpretation cases via law.go.kr, with a clear verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings by naming get_case as follow-up and implying statute search elsewhere; no ambiguity.

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 tells agents to use this when disputes or interpretation questions cannot be answered from statutory text alone. It names get_case as the follow-up tool but does not explicitly define exclusions such as 'use search_law when only statutes are needed'.

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

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.

Resources