Skip to main content
Glama

lawmadi-os

by io.github.peter120525-cmd

lookup_statute

한국 법령 조문을 조회합니다. 먼저 검증 자산(31,548개 조문, 본문 포함)을 보고, 없으면 law.go.kr 정본 색인(현행 법령 전수)으로 그 조문이 실재하는지 판정합니다. 정본 색인 경로는 본문을 갖고 있지 않으므로 실재 여부와 law.go.kr 링크만 돌려줍니다 — 본문을 지어내지 않습니다. 그 법령을 결번 없이 아는 경우에는 없다는 것도 말합니다(absent=true). LLM 미호출·결정론. 입력 예: '민법 제750조', '형법 제307조 제1항'. / Look up a Korean statute article in Lawmadi's verified-asset corpus (31,548 articles). Returns the article title, body text and law.go.kr link. Deterministic — no LLM. Callable without an API key at preview depth (title + law.go.kr link + first 200 chars of the body); a key unlocks the full article body. / 키 없이도 미리보기 깊이로 조회됩니다 — 조문 본문 전문은 키 발급 후 제공됩니다.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
referenceYesStatute reference. Example: '민법 제750조'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden and does so exceptionally well: it discloses determinism/no LLM, refusal to fabricate missing body text, absent=true reporting, and API-key-gated preview depth. This is far beyond a typical description.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and scope, then moves to behavior details. The bilingual repetition adds some length, but the information is dense and logically organized, so it remains efficient overall.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what is returned (article title, body text, law.go.kr link), the preview-depth variant, the absent flag, and the deterministic fallback behavior. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents the single 'reference' parameter at 100% coverage with an example. The description adds a second example and implies the expected statute-article format, but these are marginal additions, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses a specific verb and resource ('한국 법령 조문을 조회합니다' / 'Look up a Korean statute article') and additionally narrows scope to Lawmadi's verified-asset corpus with a law.go.kr fallback. It is clearly distinct from lookup_precedent, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

Concrete input examples ('민법 제750조', '형법 제307조 제1항'), the verified-asset/index fallback path, and preview-depth/API-key behavior make the intended use obvious. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, such as directing precedent lookups to lookup_precedent.

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
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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources