Skip to main content
Glama

lawmadi-os

by io.github.peter120525-cmd
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

search_legal_forms

[KEY REQUIRED · no credits, 60/day] law.go.kr이 제공하는 법정 서식·별표를 검색합니다 — 예: 특정 법률에 따른 신청서 서식. / Search official Korean statutory forms and appendix tables (별표·서식) served by law.go.kr.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kndNoKind of appendix, **not** a search scope: 1 별표 · 2 서식 · 3 별지 · 4 별도 · 5 부록 (blank = all). 검색범위는 서버가 정합니다.
limitNoMax results (1-100, default 20).
queryYesForm name or statute name. 법령명으로 찾을 때는 **시행규칙·규칙**이 적중률이 높습니다(서식은 대개 거기 있습니다). 서버가 별표서식명 → 해당법령 순으로 두 범위를 모두 시도합니다. / Form or statute name; enforcement rules (시행규칙) usually hold the forms.
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. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / knd / description
      Previous value: -"Kind: 1 별표 · 2 서식 · 3 별지 · 4 별도 · 5 부록 (blank = all)."New value: +"Kind of appendix, **not** a search scope: 1 별표 · 2 서식 · 3 별지 · 4 별도 · 5 부록 (blank = all). 검색범위는 서버가 정합니다."
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"Form or statute name to search."New value: +"Form name or statute name. 법령명으로 찾을 때는 **시행규칙·규칙**이 적중률이 높습니다(서식은 대개 거기 있습니다). 서버가 별표서식명 → 해당법령 순으로 두 범위를 모두 시도합니다. / Form or statute name; enforcement rules (시행규칙) usually hold the forms."
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real operational context: an API key is required, calls consume no credits, and the rate limit is 60/day. It also discloses that the server searches both name-scopes (별표서식명 → 법령). What it omits is behavior on empty/failed results and result shape.

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 bracket-prefixed key/credit/rate-limit notice is front-loaded, followed by two tight sentences. The full Korean/English duplication roughly doubles the length, which is defensible for a bilingual service but not maximally economical.

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 4-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description plus schema covers the essentials: prerequisites, quota, scope behavior, and search semantics. Only the return format and pagination behavior are left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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%, and the parameter docs (knd semantics, query hints, client_tag isolation warning) are unusually rich, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description text itself adds little parameter detail beyond the general search framing.

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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource: 'Search official Korean statutory forms and appendix tables (별표·서식) served by law.go.kr', with a concrete example of a covered use case. It is clearly distinct from statute/precedent lookup siblings, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied through an example ('특정 법률에 따른 신청서 서식') and the query param hints that enforcement rules (시행규칙) are the best place to find forms. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or routing to sibling tools like lookup_statute for the underlying law text.

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