Skip to main content
Glama

문서 전문

get_document
Read-onlyIdempotent

MyFSS MCP의 get_document 도구는 문서 전문을 반환합니다 — 첨부 HWP를 마크다운으로 변환한 본문.

[Purpose]

  • To read and quote a found document — summary·snippet are never quoting grounds.

[Usage]

  1. "그 자료 본문 보여줘" → ntt_id=12345

  2. "길어서 잘렸는데 이어서" → ntt_id=12345, offset_chars=60000

  3. "앞부분만 짧게" → ntt_id=12345, max_chars=8000

[Response]

  • { ntt_id, date, board, source, title, nature, topics, depts, summary, url, attachments:[{file_name, ext, parsed}], body_total_chars, offset_chars, truncated, body }

  • truncated=true means offset_chars+max_chars < body_total_chars — raise offset_chars to continue.

  • Unknown id returns { error: "ntt_id {n} 없음" }.

  • body = "(본문 없음)" when nothing was parsed and no HTML 본문 exists.

[Rules]

  • body = parsed attachments (parsed=true) joined under "## 첨부: {file_name}" heads; with no attachment body it falls back to the detail-page HTML body (mostly FSC).

  • attachments with parsed=false are NOT in body — disclose the gap, never hide it.

  • Continue with offset_chars; raising max_chars grows the whole response.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ntt_idYessearch_documents/list_recent가 반환한 ntt_id
max_charsNo본문 최대 길이(자)
offset_charsNo본문 시작 오프셋 (긴 문서 이어읽기)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description explains truncation semantics, unknown-id errors, fallback to detail-page HTML body, and that parsed=false attachments are excluded from body. It also tells the caller how to continue reading and how max_chars affects the whole response.

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 front-loaded with purpose and structured into Purpose/Usage/Response/Rules sections. It is somewhat long, and truncation/continuation behavior appears in both the Response and Rules sections, but the detail is largely justified because there is no output schema.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return fields, truncation flags, error shape, fallback body behavior, and attachment parsing gaps. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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 meaningful semantics: ntt_id comes from prior search/list results, offset_chars continues a truncated document, and raising max_chars grows the entire response. The examples map natural-language requests to specific parameter values.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the full document body, specifically parsed HWP attachments converted to markdown. It immediately distinguishes the tool from summary/snippet results by saying those are never quoting grounds.

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?

It gives explicit scenario examples, including reading a found document, continuing a truncated document with offset_chars, and requesting a short prefix with max_chars. It does not explicitly say when to use search_documents/list_recent instead, but the 'found document' framing and ntt_id requirement make the intended workflow clear.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources