Skip to main content
Glama

MyDART

by kr.eocpa

find_corp_code

Read-onlyIdempotent

MyDART MCP의 find_corp_code 도구는 회사명·종목코드로 DART 법인 식별자(corp_code)의 후보를 확인합니다.

[Purpose]

  • IMPORTANT: first call when a company's corp_code is unknown.

  • Also to disambiguate same-named companies.

  • ID resolution only — 업종·data location: get_company_profile; disclosure listings: search_disclosures.

[Usage]

  1. "카카오" → corp_code 획득 → 재무제표 조회(get_financials)

  2. "삼성전자" → corp_code 획득 → 임원 현황 조회(get_periodic_report)

  3. "'동양' 들어가는 회사 후보 보여줘" → query="동양", limit=20

  4. "005930이 어느 회사야?" → query="005930"

[Response]

  • stock_code: 6-digit present = listed (common shares); empty/absent = unlisted.

  • count = rows returned (capped by limit), not the total match count. 0 hits adds notes.

[Rules]

  • results is a similarity-ranked candidate array — do not assume the first item is the answer.

  • corp_code identifies the DART LEGAL ENTITY CODE, not the listing ticker. 우선주/ETF/ETN codes have no mapping (보통주 codes only).

  • Common names may overflow the default limit — raise it when candidates look truncated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax candidates to return (default 10, max 50)
queryYes회사명 (한/영), 6-digit 종목코드, or 8-digit corp_code

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that results are similarity-ranked candidates, that the first result is not necessarily correct, that stock_code presence indicates listed common shares, that count is capped by limit and not total matches, and that preferred/ETF/ETN codes have no mapping. This is significant behavioral context that an agent needs for correct interpretation.

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 longer than average, but it is well-structured into Purpose, Usage, Response, and Rules sections, and front-loads the most critical usage directive. Each section earns its place, though some content slightly overlaps between Purpose and Rules.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining key result fields (stock_code, count, notes), the candidate-array nature of results, and caveats around matching and limits. Given the tool's simple input but subtle output semantics, this is complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying accepted query formats (Korean/English name, 6-digit stock code, 8-digit corp_code) and practical limit behavior ('raise it when candidates look truncated'). This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool resolves DART corp_code candidates from a company name or stock code, and clearly scopes it as ID resolution only. It names sibling tools (get_company_profile, search_disclosures) to distinguish what this tool does not do. This removes any ambiguity about its role.

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?

The description says this is the 'first call' when a corp_code is unknown, gives concrete query examples, and tells when to use alternatives such as get_company_profile for company data or search_disclosures for filings. It also advises raising the limit when candidates appear truncated. Usage guidance is explicit and actionable.

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

All MyDART toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct aspect of the DART disclosure domain: full text, attachments, financial figures, audit facts, audit narrative, ICFR, going concern, company profile, events, periodic report sections, XBRL, valuation, usage stats, and two search entry points. Overlaps are resolved by explicit cross-references and clear purpose statements (e.g., get_audit_profile vs get_audit_report vs get_internal_control). No ambiguity remains.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 16 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, with get_ for data retrieval, search_ for list queries, find_ for ID resolution, and download_ for the one document fetch. There is no mixing of camelCase, action words, or stylistic inconsistency. The pattern is immediately predictable.

Tool Count5/5

16 tools is slightly above the typical 3–15 range but fully justified by the breadth of DART (Korea's electronic disclosure system) – covering company lookup, filings, financials, audit reports, internal control, going concern, events, periodic reports, attachments, XBRL, valuation, and usage stats. Each tool address a distinct functional need, and no tool feels redundant or extraneous. The scope is comprehensive yet not bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of disclosure data access: finding entities (find_corp_code), locating filings (search_disclosures), retrieving financials (get_financials, get_xbrl), reading full text (download_document), fetching attachments (get_attachments), and drilling into audit-related details (get_audit_profile, get_audit_report, get_internal_control, get_going_concern). Periodic report sections (28 types) and corporate events cover governance and capital changes. No obvious dead ends or missing critical operations for a read-only disclosure access server.

Resources