Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MyKIFRS

by kr.eocpa
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

수록 기준서 카탈로그

list_standards
Read-onlyIdempotent

MyKIFRS MCP의 list_standards 도구는 수록된 기준서 카탈로그를 반환합니다.

[Purpose]

  • Which 기준서 are in the corpus, and which numbers feed search_standards' std_num filter.

[Usage]

  1. "수록된 기준서 전부" → (인자 없음)

  2. "감사기준서만" → category="audit"

  3. "내부회계관리제도 관련" → category="icfr"

[Response]

  • { count, standards:[{std_num, title, category}] }

  • category values: kifrs(한국채택국제회계기준) · interpretation(해석서) · concept(재무보고를 위한 개념체계) · translation(번역본) · kgaap(일반기업회계기준) · special(특수분야) · audit(감사기준서) · icfr(내부회계관리제도) · sme(중소기업회계기준) · nonprofit(비영리조직회계기준) · assurance(검토·인증업무 기준(목록만)) · other(기업회계기준 전문·적용의견서·회계감사실무지침·행동강령).

[Rules]

  • Lists 수집 성공(crawl_status='ok') 기준서 only — an absent 기준서 means "미수집", not "존재하지 않음".

  • 감사인증·윤리기준 (검토·인증·품질관리 등)과 고시 원문 are outside this catalog — search_standards category="assure"·"ext_std".

  • category is a free-form string, not an enum: an unknown value returns count=0, not an error.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_standards"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categoryNo카테고리로 필터 (생략 시 전체)

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/closed-world profile, so the description is free to add the behavioral facts that actually matter: only standards with crawl_status='ok' are listed, and absence means '미수집' rather than '존재하지 않음'. It also discloses failure semantics — an unknown category returns count=0 rather than an error — which no structured field conveys.

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 as Purpose / Usage / Response / Rules with the core statement front-loaded, so an agent can skim the first line and stop. The twelve-value category enumeration is long but load-bearing given the free-form string risk; the only mild slack is restating the return shape in prose that also appears in the [Response] block.

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, so the description supplies the return shape ({count, standards:[{std_num, title, category}]}) itself. Combined with the crawl_status caveat, the out-of-scope routing, and the silent-empty-result warning, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret empties.

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 schema only says '카테고리로 필터 (생략 시 전체)'. The description enumerates all twelve category values, gives their Korean meanings, and warns that the field is a free-form string rather than an enum, so an unrecognized value silently yields count=0 instead of an error.

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 and resource ('수록된 기준서 카탈로그를 반환합니다') and explicitly frames the output's downstream use: which std_num values feed search_standards' filter. That makes it trivially separable from the sibling search_standards, which retrieves content rather than enumerating the corpus.

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 three concrete user-intent → argument mappings ('전부' → no args, '감사기준서만' → category="audit", '내부회계관리제도' → category="icfr'). It also states exclusions and routes them to the sibling: 감사인증·윤리기준 and 고시 원문 are outside this catalog and belong to search_standards with category="assure"/"ext_std".

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