Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

lawmadi-os

by io.github.peter120525-cmd
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

lookup_precedent

[NO KEY · preview depth, 1/day] 사건번호로 한국 판례를 조회합니다. 먼저 검증 자산(18,155건, 전부 law.go.kr 본문 대조 완료)을 보고, 없으면 law.go.kr 정본 색인(대법원 판례·헌재결정례 전수)에서 실재를 확인한 뒤 본문을 직접 받아옵니다. 응답의 source 필드가 근거의 강도를 가릅니다 — corpus 는 본문까지 대조된 것이고, authoritative_index 는 정본에서 실재를 확인하고 본문을 그 자리에서 받아온 것입니다. 법원·선고일·사건명·판시사항·판결요지·참조조문과 law.go.kr 원문 직결 링크를 돌려줍니다. LLM을 부르지 않는 결정론적 조회라 할루시네이션이 없습니다. 입력 예: '2020도3050', '대법원 2024. 4. 16. 선고 2020도3050 판결', '2016헌마90'. / Look up a Korean court case by docket number in Lawmadi's verified-asset corpus (18,155 precedents, each confirmed against law.go.kr). Returns court, decision date, case name, holding, summary, referenced articles and a direct law.go.kr full-text link. Deterministic — no LLM, no hallucination. Callable without an API key at preview depth (metadata + law.go.kr link + first 200 chars of the holding); a key unlocks the full holding, summary and referenced articles. / 키 없이도 미리보기 깊이로 조회됩니다 — 판시사항 전문·판결요지·참조조문은 키 발급 후 제공됩니다.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
case_noYesDocket number or full citation. Example: '2020도3050'.
client_tagNo선택. 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the free-tier limit ('NO KEY · preview depth, 1/day'), what an API key unlocks (full holding, summary, referenced articles), that preview truncates the holding to 200 chars, the deterministic no-LLM behavior, and—importantly—the fallback path to the law.go.kr authoritative index and what the `source` field means for evidence strength.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

Core information is front-loaded, but the same content is restated three times (Korean, English, Korean again), including a redundant closing sentence repeating the key-gating already stated in the middle block. The repetition costs tokens without adding new facts.

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?

Covers everything an agent needs to call correctly despite having no output schema: return fields, direct law.go.kr link, auth tiers, the rate limit, the corpus-vs-authoritative_index provenance distinction, and the deterministic behavior claim. No significant behavioral gap for a two-parameter lookup tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (including the 'response has no effect' nature of client_tag). The description adds richer case_no format examples beyond the schema's single example, but nothing about semantics the schema lacks—baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('사건번호로 한국 판례를 조회합니다 / Look up a Korean court case by docket number') and enumerates the returned fields (court, date, case name, holding, summary, referenced articles, link). The resource is clearly distinct from sibling tools like lookup_statute and verify_citations, so no schema opening is needed to disambiguate.

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?

Gives clear triggering context (docket-number lookup) and three concrete input examples ('2020도3050', a full citation, '2016헌마90'), plus the key/no-key depth distinction. It does not explicitly compare against the nearest alternative (verify_citations or lookup_statute), so the agent is left to infer which resource type each sibling serves.

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

All lawmadi-os 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