Skip to main content
Glama

lawmadi-os

by io.github.peter120525-cmd
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

search

[KEY REQUIRED · no credits, 60/day] law.go.kr에서 법령명으로 한국 법령을 검색합니다(조문 본문·판례는 검색하지 않습니다). 판례는 lookup_precedent, 조문은 lookup_statute, 아무 텍스트의 인용 검증은 verify_citations 를 쓰십시오. 입력 예: '주택임대차보호법', '근로기준법'. / Search Korean statutes by law name on law.go.kr (it does not search article text or case law). Use lookup_precedent for cases, lookup_statute for articles, verify_citations to check citations in arbitrary text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesSearch query (min 2 chars). Example: '근로기준법'.
limitNoMax results (1-100, default 10).
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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key constraint (law-name only, not article text or case law) and the rate limit (60/day, no credits, key required). However, it doesn't describe the return format, pagination, or what happens on no results. The disclosed constraints are useful but not fully rich behavioral context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two compact sentences in Korean and English, front-loaded with the key constraint and rate limit, then routing to siblings. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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?

For a search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: what it searches, what it excludes, alternatives, examples, and rate limit. The only gap is the return shape, but that's minor for a search tool whose schema is fully documented.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds example queries and clarifies that client_tag never affects the response and invalid values are ignored, which is useful. But it doesn't add much beyond the schema for q and limit. 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 ('search'), resource ('Korean statutes by law name on law.go.kr'), and explicit exclusions ('does not search article text or case law'). It also names sibling tools for those exclusions, so an agent can distinguish it from lookup_precedent, lookup_statute, and verify_citations without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use this tool vs alternatives: use lookup_precedent for cases, lookup_statute for articles, verify_citations for citation checks. It also gives concrete example queries ('주택임대차보호법', '근로기준법'), which is strong usage 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