Skip to main content
Glama

lawmadi-os

by io.github.peter120525-cmd
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

lookup_statute

[NO KEY · preview depth, 1/day] 한국 법령 조문을 조회합니다. 먼저 검증 자산(31,830개 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 (31,830 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'.
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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the preview depth without a key (title + law.go.kr link + first 200 chars), the 1/day limit, that a key unlocks the full body, that it is deterministic with no LLM call, that it will not fabricate body text, and that it can affirmatively return absent=true.

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?

The critical 'no key / preview depth' constraint is front-loaded, which is good, but that same information is repeated three times across the header tag, the English paragraph, and the closing Korean sentence. The bilingual duplication makes it noticeably longer than necessary for a two-parameter lookup.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return shape, and it does: article title, body text, law.go.kr link, and an absent flag for confirmed non-existence. It stops short of describing error behavior for malformed references or how the one-per-day limit is surfaced, minor gaps for an otherwise complete 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including client_tag's full contract. The description adds concrete input examples ('민법 제750조', '형법 제307조 제1항'), but those largely restate the example already in the schema, so no credit above the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (look up a Korean statute article) and describes both the primary corpus path and the law.go.kr canonical-index fallback, so the agent knows exactly what is being retrieved. It never names its obvious sibling lookup_precedent to disambiguate statutes vs precedents, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Use is implied by the description ('look up a Korean statute article') and the input examples clarify the shape of a valid query, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over verify_citations or lookup_precedent. The '먼저...없으면' text describes internal fallback logic rather than tool-selection guidance.

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