Skip to main content
Glama

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

TableJSON 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. 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"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond those: doc_number is not unique, results is always an array, qna_key wins when both arguments are present, and miss responses return a standardized error with a similar list. It also warns the agent never to answer from the first row alone.

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 sections, front-loaded with a one-sentence summary. Each section communicates a distinct kind of information without redundancy or filler, and every sentence contributes to the safe invocation of the tool.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly covers the response shape, including fields like source, qna_key, title, and full_content, as well as both miss-error variants and the similar list. For a read-only retrieval tool with two simple parameters, this is a comprehensive description and fills the gaps left by structured data.

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%, but the description substantially enriches both parameters: it explains the exact "{source}:{id}" format, the precedence if both parameters are supplied, that doc_number can return duplicate rows, and that numbering formats differ by series so values must be passed unaltered. This is genuinely useful 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 clearly states that get_qna returns the full text (질의회신 전문) for a doc_number or qna_key, and explicitly says where those identifiers come from (search_qnas, get_paragraph's related_qnas). This differentiates it from sibling search tools like search_qnas by focusing on retrieval of a full document rather than search results.

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?

The Usage section gives concrete input examples ("2017-001 회신 전문" → doc_number, "legacy:6009 전문" → qna_key), and the Rules section explains precedence when both arguments are given. It gives clear context for when to supply doc_number vs. qna_key, though it does not explicitly spell out when-not-to-use this tool versus siblings such as search_qnas.

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