MyKIFRS

by kr.eocpa

Overview Discussions Admin

회계기준원·공인회계사회 보조 자료 검색

search_materials

Read-onlyIdempotent

MyKIFRS MCP의 search_materials 도구는 회계기준원·공인회계사회의 보조 자료(질의회신 교육자료·공개초안·IASB 동향·연구보고서·협의회 사례·가치평가 자료 등)를 전문검색합니다.

[Purpose]

Supporting (2-tier) material: 질의회신 교육·정비목록, 공개초안·IFRS 검토의견·제·개정 공표, IASB 동향, 연구보고서, 세미나·KAI Forum, 제정개정과제, KICPA 전·당기 협의회 사례, 가치평가 자료실 (위험 프리미엄·IVS).
1-tier is in the core tools: 기준서·감사인증·윤리기준·고시 원문 → search_standards; 회신·정착지원TF·품질관리실장 회의 → search_qnas.

[Usage]

"1028호 공정가치선택권 공개초안" → query="공정가치선택권", board="ed"
"2025 질의회신 교육 리스" → query="리스", board="edu"
"시장위험 프리미엄" → query="시장위험 프리미엄", board="valuation"

[Response]

{ hits, results:[{material_key, board, category, date, title, snippet}] }
board codes: listed in the board parameter's description. date null = 과제 페이지.

[Rules]

Tokens ≥3 chars → FTS (AND, rank); 1~2 chars → LIKE (newest first).
Supporting only, never 회신 — where it conflicts with 기준서·회신·1-tier, follow those.
Read the full text with get_material(material_key).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`board`	No	게시판으로 한정 (생략 시 전체) — qna_maint(질의회신 정비목록) · edu(질의회신 교육자료) · project(제정개정과제) · consult(의견조회) · ed(공개초안) · comment(IFRS 검토의견) · trend(IASB 동향) · amend(제·개정 공표) · research(연구보고서·KARI Report) · glossary(K-IFRS 주요용어) · event(세미나·KAI Forum) · kicpa_council(전·당기 감사인 의견불일치 조정 협의회 사례(KICPA)) · valuation(가치평가 자료실(KICPA — 위험 프리미엄·IVS·외부평가 서식))
`limit`	No	최대 결과 수 (기본 10)
`query`	Yes	검색 키워드 (공백 구분)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 27, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / board / description

Previous value: -"게시판으로 한정 (생략 시 전체) — 1-tier: assure(감사인증·윤리기준(KICPA, 최신판 — 품질관리·검토·인증·윤리·가치평가서비스 수행기준 등)) · ext_std(외부 기관 기준·고시(공익법인·집합건물 회계처리기준, 분·반기 검토준칙, 공공감사기준 등)) / 2-tier: qna_maint(질의회신 정비목록) · edu(질의회신 교육자료) · project(제정개정과제) · consult(의견조회) · ed(공개초안) · comment(IFRS 검토의견) · trend(IASB 동향) · amend(제·개정 공표) · research(연구보고서·KARI Report) · glossary(K-IFRS 주요용어) · event(세미나·KAI Forum) · column(기고자료) · kicpa_case(IFRS 실무사례(KICPA 월간공인회계사)) · kicpa_council(전·당기 감사인 의견불일치 조정 협의회 사례(KICPA)) · kicpa_column(회계기준원 기고문(KICPA, KASB 기고자료에 없는 것)) · valuation(가치평가 자료실(KICPA — 위험 프리미엄·IVS·외부평가 서식))"New value: +"게시판으로 한정 (생략 시 전체) — qna_maint(질의회신 정비목록) · edu(질의회신 교육자료) · project(제정개정과제) · consult(의견조회) · ed(공개초안) · comment(IFRS 검토의견) · trend(IASB 동향) · amend(제·개정 공표) · research(연구보고서·KARI Report) · glossary(K-IFRS 주요용어) · event(세미나·KAI Forum) · kicpa_council(전·당기 감사인 의견불일치 조정 협의회 사례(KICPA)) · valuation(가치평가 자료실(KICPA — 위험 프리미엄·IVS·외부평가 서식))"

changedInput schema / properties / board / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "assure",
-  "ext_std",
-  "qna_maint",
-  "edu",
-  "project",
-  "consult",
-  "ed",
-  "comment",
-  "trend",
-  "amend",
-  "research",
-  "glossary",
-  "event",
-  "column",
-  "kicpa_case",
-  "kicpa_council",
-  "kicpa_column",
-  "valuation"
-]New value: +[
+  "qna_maint",
+  "edu",
+  "project",
+  "consult",
+  "ed",
+  "comment",
+  "trend",
+  "amend",
+  "research",
+  "glossary",
+  "event",
+  "kicpa_council",
+  "valuation"
+]

removedInput schema / properties / tier

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "const": 1,
-      "type": "number"
-    },
-    {
-      "const": 2,
-      "type": "number"
-    }
-  ],
-  "description": "근거의 층으로 한정 — 1=기준·고시 원문, 2=교육·해설·사례·초안 (생략 시 전체, 1-tier 먼저)"
-}

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 27, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / board / description

Previous value: -"게시판으로 한정 (생략 시 전체) — tf(정착지원TF 논의내용) · qna_maint(질의회신 정비목록) · edu(질의회신 교육자료) · project(제정개정과제) · consult(의견조회) · ed(공개초안) · comment(IFRS 검토의견) · trend(IASB 동향) · amend(제·개정 공표) · research(연구보고서·KARI Report) · glossary(K-IFRS 주요용어) · event(세미나·KAI Forum·회의자료) · column(기고자료) · sus_project(지속가능성 과제) · sus_lib(지속가능성 제정개정자료) · sus_kr(한국 지속가능성 공시기준 적용지원) · sus_intl(국제 지속가능성 공시기준 적용지원)"New value: +"게시판으로 한정 (생략 시 전체) — 1-tier: assure(감사인증·윤리기준(KICPA, 최신판 — 품질관리·검토·인증·윤리·가치평가서비스 수행기준 등)) · ext_std(외부 기관 기준·고시(공익법인·집합건물 회계처리기준, 분·반기 검토준칙, 공공감사기준 등)) / 2-tier: qna_maint(질의회신 정비목록) · edu(질의회신 교육자료) · project(제정개정과제) · consult(의견조회) · ed(공개초안) · comment(IFRS 검토의견) · trend(IASB 동향) · amend(제·개정 공표) · research(연구보고서·KARI Report) · glossary(K-IFRS 주요용어) · event(세미나·KAI Forum) · column(기고자료) · kicpa_case(IFRS 실무사례(KICPA 월간공인회계사)) · kicpa_council(전·당기 감사인 의견불일치 조정 협의회 사례(KICPA)) · kicpa_column(회계기준원 기고문(KICPA, KASB 기고자료에 없는 것)) · valuation(가치평가 자료실(KICPA — 위험 프리미엄·IVS·외부평가 서식))"

changedInput schema / properties / board / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "tf",
-  "qna_maint",
-  "edu",
-  "project",
-  "consult",
-  "ed",
-  "comment",
-  "trend",
-  "amend",
-  "research",
-  "glossary",
-  "event",
-  "column",
-  "sus_project",
-  "sus_lib",
-  "sus_kr",
-  "sus_intl"
-]New value: +[
+  "assure",
+  "ext_std",
+  "qna_maint",
+  "edu",
+  "project",
+  "consult",
+  "ed",
+  "comment",
+  "trend",
+  "amend",
+  "research",
+  "glossary",
+  "event",
+  "column",
+  "kicpa_case",
+  "kicpa_council",
+  "kicpa_column",
+  "valuation"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / tier

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "const": 1,
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    {
+      "const": 2,
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "근거의 층으로 한정 — 1=기준·고시 원문, 2=교육·해설·사례·초안 (생략 시 전체, 1-tier 먼저)"
+}

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: FTS (AND, rank) for tokens ≥3 chars vs LIKE (newest-first) for 1-2 chars, and that date=null means a 과제 페이지. It also routes to get_material for full text. Missing only things like pagination limits or result ordering across boards.

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 with headers ([Purpose]/[Usage]/[Response]/[Rules]) and front-loaded, with essentially no filler. Minor redundancy: the opening sentence restates what [Purpose] and [Rules] cover again.

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, but the description supplies the response shape ({hits, results:[...]}) and notes date can be null. Combined with the usage examples and FTS/LIKE rules, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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% and the board enum is fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing which board codes pair with which query intents and by explaining query tokenization thresholds, which is semantics the schema does not carry.

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: full-text search of 회계기준원·공인회계사회 supporting materials, with an enumerated scope. It explicitly contrasts with 1-tier siblings (search_standards for 기준서, search_qnas for 회신), so an agent can pick the right tool without opening schemas.

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?

Provides three concrete query+board example pairs mapping user phrasing to parameters, states what this tool does NOT cover, and gives an explicit conflict-resolution rule ('where it conflicts with 기준서·회신·1-tier, follow those').

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

All MyKIFRS tools Inspect

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

Need Help?