발행된 데일리 콘텐츠 한 편을 전체 레코드 형태로 가져옵니다: 오늘의 법률상식(daily — 검증 조문 목록과 FAQ 포함), 전략 칼럼(strategy)·기술 칼럼(tech, 라이브 확인된 참고자료 포함), 리걸테크 뉴스(news, 출처 도메인 포함), 수험 판례 강의노트(bar), 오늘의 판례(precedent — 검증 판례 레코드 첨부). 날짜를 주거나, 생략하면 해당 스트림의 최신 편. / Fetch one published daily post in full-record form. Pass a date, or omit it for the latest post in that stream.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | YYYY-MM-DD. Omit for the latest post. | |
| stream | Yes | Content stream. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('full-record form') and the specific fields included per stream, which adds value. However, it does not address potential issues such as permissions, missing dates, or error behaviors, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two clear sentences explaining purpose and usage. The bilingual presentation adds slight redundancy, but the structure is front-loaded and efficient. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It covers the retrieval logic, the streams, and the default date behavior. It does not need to discuss return format beyond what is stated, and the absence of edge-case detail is acceptable for this scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds contextual detail—like what each stream contains—but does not clarify parameter formats beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Fetch one published daily post in full-record form.' It specifies the resource (daily post) and provides a detailed breakdown of the content types per stream. It effectively distinguishes itself from list-oriented siblings like 'latest_content' by emphasizing a single post retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the usage pattern: 'Pass a date, or omit it for the latest post in that stream.' It clearly communicates the optional date parameter and the default behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, so it loses one point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target clearly distinct resources (statutes, precedents, bar exam, documents, content, account), and cross-references in descriptions explicitly disambiguate similar actions like search vs lookup_statute vs lookup_precedent. A few close pairs exist (ask vs ask_expert, latest_content vs get_daily_content, bar_exam_search vs get_exam_answer), but each pair has clear differentiators.
The set predominantly follows snake_case verb_noun naming (get_account, lookup_statute, verify_citations, generate_document). Minor deviations like latest_content (no verb) and bar_exam_search (noun-first) break the pattern, but the overall convention is readable and predictable.
At 19 tools, the surface is on the heavier side but each tool addresses a distinct need across a broad legal domain (Q&A, research, document generation, bar exam corpus, content, account management). The count feels justified for the stated scope, though it approaches the upper boundary of reasonable.
The server covers the main legal workflows well: Q&A (ask, chat_leader), research (lookup_statute, lookup_precedent, search, verify_citations), document drafting (generate_document), and bar exam prep (bar_exam_search, get_exam_answer). Minor gaps exist, such as no browse/list-all endpoints for statutes or precedents and no way to manage generated documents, but agents can work around these.
