Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MyKIFRS

by kr.eocpa
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

질의회신 전문

get_qna
Read-onlyIdempotent

MyKIFRS MCP의 get_qna 도구는 질의회신 전문을 반환합니다.

[Purpose]

  • The 회신 full text for a doc_number (search_qnas, get_paragraph's related_qnas) or a qna_key (search_qnas).

[Usage]

  1. "2017-001 회신 전문" → doc_number="2017-001"

  2. "legacy:6009 전문" → qna_key="legacy:6009"

[Response]

  • { results:[{source, qna_key, doc_number, date, title, rel_stds, full_content, org}] }

  • Miss → { error: "문서번호 없음: {doc_number}", similar:[{source, qna_key, doc_number, title}] } (≤5 부분일치) or { error: "qna_key 없음: {qna_key}" }.

  • source / org / rel_stds: same meaning as in search_qnas.

[Rules]

  • results is an array; doc_number is NOT unique ("GKQA03-100" → 2 rows). Never answer from the first row alone — pin one by qna_key.

  • qna_key = "{source}:{id}" exactly as returned; if both arguments are given, qna_key wins.

  • 번호 formats differ by series ("2021-G-KQA005" · "GKQA01-085" · "금감원사례-1") — pass the value as received, never alter case or separators.

  • On a miss, re-ask using similar rather than guessing another 번호.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qna_keyNo행 식별자 "{source}:{id}" (search_qnas 의 qna_key, 예: legacy:6009) — 번호가 비었거나 중복일 때
doc_numberNo질의회신 문서번호 — qna_key 를 주지 않을 때 필수

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. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / doc_number / description
      Previous value: -"질의회신 문서번호"New value: +"질의회신 문서번호 — qna_key 를 주지 않을 때 필수"
    • addedInput schema / properties / qna_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "행 식별자 \"{source}:{id}\" (search_qnas 의 qna_key, 예: legacy:6009) — 번호가 비었거나 중복일 때",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "doc_number"
-]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: exact response shape, the miss payload with up to 5 partial matches, the warning that doc_number is non-unique ("GKQA03-100" → 2 rows) so results must not be answered from the first row, and that qna_key wins when both args are given. This is genuinely additive behavioral disclosure.

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?

Sectioned and front-loaded (Purpose/Usage/Response/Rules), and nearly every line carries operational value. Slightly long with some Korean/English duplication, but no sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies one: the results array fields, the two error shapes, and the meaning of source/org/rel_stds. Combined with the miss-handling rule, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: qna_key takes precedence when both are supplied, the "{source}:{id}" contract must be passed exactly as returned, and series-specific 번호 formats must never have case/separators altered. These are real invocation rules, not restatement.

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+resource: returns the full text of a 질의회신 for a doc_number or qna_key, and explicitly names its sources (search_qnas, get_paragraph's related_qnas), routing the agent away from list/search siblings. The title and body are consistent and an agent can distinguish this from search_qnas without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete user-phrase→argument mappings ("2017-001 회신 전문" → doc_number, "legacy:6009 전문" → qna_key) plus a fallback rule: on a miss, re-ask using `similar` instead of guessing. When-to-use and what-to-do-otherwise are both explicit.

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

All MyKIFRS 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