Skip to main content
Glama

MyFSS

by kr.eocpa

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

TableJSON 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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavior: truncated semantics, offset continuation, fallback from parsed HWP attachments to HTML body, exclusion of parsed=false attachments, unknown-id error format, and '(본문 없음)' placeholder. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is organized into Purpose, Usage, Response, and Rules, with the most important scoping statement first. Every section earns its place; the labeled format and short example mappings make it easy to scan.

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 must carry return-value information; it enumerates the response fields, explains truncated and error cases, and documents body fallback behavior. Given the tool's moderate complexity, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches parameter meaning: offset_chars=60000 for continuing, max_chars=8000 for a short excerpt, and the rule that raising max_chars grows the whole response while offset_chars moves the window. This is actionable guidance beyond the schema.

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 action and resource: returns the full document body, with HWP attachments converted to markdown. The Purpose line explicitly frames it as the quoting/reading follow-up to a found document, distinguishing it from search_documents/list_recent.

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?

Contains clear context and usage examples ('그 자료 본문 보여줘' -> ntt_id), and says summary/snippet are never quoting grounds, implying get_document is for exact reading. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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

All MyFSS 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
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct role: search_documents handles query-based search with pagination, list_recent is the no-query recent feed, list_tags supplies filter vocabulary, get_document retrieves full text, and get_usage_stats is server telemetry. The only mild overlap is between list_recent and a query-less search_documents, but the descriptions explicitly separate quick skim from fuller search.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_document, get_usage_stats, list_recent, list_tags, search_documents. The naming is predictable and makes the purpose of each tool immediately clear.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a read-only regulatory document search and retrieval server. The set covers discovery, search, vocabulary validation, full-text access, and usage monitoring without redundant or excessive tools.

Completeness5/5

The core workflow is fully covered: discover documents via search or recent listing, validate filter values via list_tags, and retrieve full text with pagination via get_document. Since this is a read-only corpus, the absence of create/update/delete tools is appropriate rather than a gap.

Resources