lawmadi-os

by io.github.peter120525-cmd

ask_expert

[KEY REQUIRED · 3 credits · PRO plan only] 전문가 모드 법률 분석 — 전체 검증 파이프라인을 돌려 더 깊이 인용된 답변을 만듭니다. ask보다 느립니다. Pro 요금제 전용입니다(Pro 크레딧 팩 구매 시 활성화). 잔액만으로는 열리지 않으며, Pro가 아니면 3크레딧을 차감하지 않고 거절합니다 — 그 경우 ask(2크레딧)를 쓰세요. / Expert mode legal analysis — runs the full verification pipeline for a more detailed, deeply-cited answer. Slower than ask. Pro plan only (unlocked by buying the Pro credit pack); a positive balance alone is not enough. Non-Pro callers are refused without being charged — use ask (2 credits) instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lang`	No	Response language. Auto-detected if omitted.
`query`	Yes	Legal question in Korean or English (max 2000 chars).
`client_tag`	No	선택. client_tag: 호출자 식별용, 응답에 영향 없음(8~64자, 영숫자·_-.). 서버 로그에만 남아 호출을 골라 세는 데 씁니다. 형식이 어긋나면 무시합니다 — 거절하지 않습니다. 질의 본문에 섞지 마세요: 본문에 넣으면 질문의 일부가 되어 분류와 검증 결과가 달라집니다. / Optional caller label (8-64 chars). Logged only; never affects the response. Invalid values are ignored, not rejected. Do not put it in the query text — there it becomes part of the question.
`idempotency_key`	No	선택. 재시도 안전 키(8~64자, 영숫자·_-.). 같은 키로 다시 부르면 두 번 과금되지 않고 보관된 답변을 그대로 돌려줍니다(24시간). 전문가 답변은 단가가 가장 높아 타임아웃 시 이 키가 특히 중요합니다. / Optional retry-safe key (8-64 chars). Retrying with the same key is never charged twice and replays the stored answer for 24h.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 3, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description

Previous value: -"선택. 재시도 안전 키(8~64자, 영숫자·_-.). 같은 키로 다시 부르면 **두 번 과금되지 않고** 보관된 답변을 그대로 돌려줍니다(24시간). 전문가 답변은 2크레딧이라 타임아웃 시 이 키가 특히 중요합니다. / Optional retry-safe key (8-64 chars). Retrying with the same key is never charged twice and replays the stored answer for 24h."New value: +"선택. 재시도 안전 키(8~64자, 영숫자·_-.). 같은 키로 다시 부르면 **두 번 과금되지 않고** 보관된 답변을 그대로 돌려줍니다(24시간). 전문가 답변은 단가가 가장 높아 타임아웃 시 이 키가 특히 중요합니다. / Optional retry-safe key (8-64 chars). Retrying with the same key is never charged twice and replays the stored answer for 24h."

Changed1 schema field changedSep 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / client_tag

Added value: +{
+  "description": "선택. client_tag: 호출자 식별용, **응답에 영향 없음**(8~64자, 영숫자·_-.). 서버 로그에만 남아 호출을 골라 세는 데 씁니다. 형식이 어긋나면 무시합니다 — 거절하지 않습니다. 질의 본문에 섞지 마세요: 본문에 넣으면 질문의 일부가 되어 분류와 검증 결과가 달라집니다. / Optional caller label (8-64 chars). Logged only; never affects the response. Invalid values are ignored, not rejected. Do not put it in the query text — there it becomes part of the question.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedAug 20, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key

Added value: +{
+  "description": "선택. 재시도 안전 키(8~64자, 영숫자·_-.). 같은 키로 다시 부르면 **두 번 과금되지 않고** 보관된 답변을 그대로 돌려줍니다(24시간). 전문가 답변은 2크레딧이라 타임아웃 시 이 키가 특히 중요합니다. / Optional retry-safe key (8-64 chars). Retrying with the same key is never charged twice and replays the stored answer for 24h.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedJun 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses significant behavior: cost (3 credits), Pro-plan gating, refusal-without-charge for non-Pro, and higher latency vs `ask`. It stops short of describing the answer's return structure or any rate limits, but the billing and access semantics are unusually well covered.

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?

Front-loads the critical gating facts in bracketed tags ('KEY REQUIRED · 3 credits · PRO plan only') before any prose, which is ideal for scanning. The Korean/English duplication is deliberate for a bilingual product but does inflate length noticeably.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers pricing, access gating, latency, and the sibling alternative. What is missing is only minor: a brief note on the answer's shape (beyond 'deeply cited') and any timeout/latency guidance beyond 'slower'.

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%, so the schema already documents query, lang, client_tag, and idempotency_key in detail (including the idempotency replay and charging behavior). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ('전문가 모드 법률 분석' / expert-mode legal analysis) plus the mechanism ('runs the full verification pipeline'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `ask` ('slower than ask', 'use ask (2 credits) instead'), so an agent can pick between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (deep citations, expert mode) and when-not-to-use (non-Pro callers, use `ask`). It names the alternative and the condition that selects it, and clarifies that a positive balance alone is insufficient and that non-Pro calls are refused without charge.

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

All lawmadi-os tools Inspect

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

Need Help?