Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

산재 신청 도우미 (sanjae-apply)

by io.github.seojaehong
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

도장(인영) PNG 만들기

make_seal
Read-onlyIdempotent

이름으로 성명인(원형·사각·타원) 또는 법인형(원주 법인명 + 중심 문자 + 하단 부문자) 도장 PNG(투명 배경)를 만들어 base64 로 돌려준다. 본인 또는 명의자 동의가 있는 이름만 쓴다. 등록 인감을 흉내 내는 용도가 아니다(사용인감 성격). fill_form 의 stamp.name 으로 바로 찍을 수도 있다.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "make_seal"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo성명인 이름(2~4자). 동봉 글꼴(나눔고딕)에 없는 글자(한자 등)는 오류
shapeNo기본 circle
arc_textNo원주 상단 법인명(있으면 법인형)
inner_ringNo이중선 두께 px
bottom_textNo원주 하단 부문자(사업자번호 등)
center_textNo중심 문자. 줄바꿈은 \n

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the output is a transparent-background PNG returned as base64, and characters missing from the bundled NanumGothic font (e.g. hanja) cause an error. It does not mention image dimensions or any size/rate limits, so it is solid but not rich.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what is produced and how it is returned, then constraints. Parenthetical asides (shape variants, corporate composition) are informative rather than filler, though the sentence packing is heavy.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return value (base64 transparent PNG) and covers the main failure mode (unsupported glyphs). Legal/consent scope is also stated. Only minor gaps remain, such as output image size or resolution, which an agent might want before embedding the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds composition logic the schema does not: supplying arc_text switches the tool into corporate-seal mode combining arc name, center character, and bottom sub-text. That relationship between parameters is genuine added meaning.

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 and resource (make a seal/stamp PNG), enumerates the variants it supports (personal circular/square/ellipse vs. corporate with arc text, center character, bottom sub-text), and names the return format (transparent-background PNG as base64). An agent can distinguish it from fill_form and the other form-oriented siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear usage constraints: only names belonging to the user or with the name-holder's consent, and explicitly not for imitating a registered seal (it is a 사용인감-style stamp). It also points to the integration path via fill_form's stamp.name. It stops short of stating when to prefer an alternative tool, but the exclusions it does give are concrete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All 산재 신청 도우미 (sanjae-apply) 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