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(31,548개 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'.
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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It states that the tool is deterministic, does not fabricate body text, can return absent=true when the statute is known to be missing, falls back law.go.kr link-only results from the canonical index, and explains preview-depth limits and API-key behavior.

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 long but well structured with Korean/English sections and front-loaded key constraints such as preview depth and no-API-key access. Each section adds useful behavioral information, though the bilingual repetition makes it slightly less concise than it could be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return behavior: article title, body text, link, absent=true, preview truncation at 200 characters, and key-based full access. Combined with parameter examples and operational limits, the agent has enough context to call 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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the schema already documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds example reference formats like '형법 제307조 제1항', but it does not materially add semantic meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: looking up Korean statute articles in a verified statute corpus and returning title, body text, and a law.go.kr link. It also distinguishes itself from a generic legal search or precedent lookup by emphasizing 'statute article' and 'deterministic — no LLM'.

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?

The intended use case is clear: use this tool to look up Korean statute articles, with optional no-key preview access and key-based full-body access. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context is specific enough to route an agent correctly.

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