Skip to main content
Glama
chrisryugj

korean-law-mcp

by chrisryugj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_law_text

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch full text of Korean statutes or a specific article by law ID or serial number. Supply an article like '제148조의2' and a reference date to retrieve the version in force on that date.

Instructions

Korean-law-mcp — [법령조회] 조문 전문 조회. mst/lawId 필수, jo로 특정 조문만 가능 — jo는 '제148조의2' 같은 자연어 조문 표기를 그대로 받는다(권장). 6자리 JO 코드를 직접 쓰려면 조번호 4자리 zero-pad + 의X 2자리: 제10조의2→001002, 제234조의2→023402(234002 아님). 과거 시점 본문은 efYd 에 그 날짜를 넣으면 그날 시행 중이던 버전으로 자동 보정한다(제명이 바뀌기 전 버전 포함). 적용 법령 판단·경과조치까지 필요하면 legal_analysis(mode=applicable_law).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
joNo조문 번호. 자연어 표기 권장 — '제38조'·'제148조의2'를 그대로 넣으면 서버가 변환한다. 6자리 JO 코드 직접 지정 시 조번호 4자리 zero-pad + 의X 2자리: 제38조→003800, 제10조의2→001002, 제234조의2→023402(234002 아님)
mstNo법령일련번호 (search_law에서 획득)
efYdNo기준일 또는 시행일자 (YYYYMMDD). 시행일이면 그 버전, 시행일이 아닌 날짜(건축허가일·사건일 같은 조회 기준일)면 그날 시행 중이던 버전으로 자동 보정한다(제명이 바뀌기 전 버전 포함). 현행 본문은 efYd 없이 조회할 것. 시행예정본은 search_law 가 안내한 efYd 를 그대로 쓴다.
lawIdNo법령ID (search_law에서 획득)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv4.15.5
    • changedInput schema / properties / efYd / description
      Previous value: -"시행일자 (YYYYMMDD). 그 법령에 **실재하는 시행일**이어야 한다 — 오늘 날짜 같은 임의 '조회 기준일'을 넣으면 NOT_FOUND 가 난다. 현행 본문은 efYd 없이 조회할 것. 시행예정본은 search_law 가 안내한 efYd 를 그대로 쓴다."New value: +"기준일 또는 시행일자 (YYYYMMDD). 시행일이면 그 버전, 시행일이 아닌 날짜(건축허가일·사건일 같은 조회 기준일)면 그날 시행 중이던 버전으로 자동 보정한다(제명이 바뀌기 전 버전 포함). 현행 본문은 efYd 없이 조회할 것. 시행예정본은 search_law 가 안내한 efYd 를 그대로 쓴다."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv4.13.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / efYd / description
      Previous value: -"시행일자 (YYYYMMDD 형식)"New value: +"시행일자 (YYYYMMDD). 그 법령에 **실재하는 시행일**이어야 한다 — 오늘 날짜 같은 임의 '조회 기준일'을 넣으면 NOT_FOUND 가 난다. 현행 본문은 efYd 없이 조회할 것. 시행예정본은 search_law 가 안내한 efYd 를 그대로 쓴다."
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv4.12.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / jo / description
      Previous value: -"조문 번호 (예: '제38조' 또는 '003800')"New value: +"조문 번호. 자연어 표기 권장 — '제38조'·'제148조의2'를 그대로 넣으면 서버가 변환한다. 6자리 JO 코드 직접 지정 시 조번호 4자리 zero-pad + 의X 2자리: 제38조→003800, 제10조의2→001002, 제234조의2→023402(234002 아님)"
  4. Addedv4.9.1
  5. Removedv4.9.1
  6. First observedv4.4.2

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: efYd auto-corrects to the version in effect on that date, including versions predating a title change. It does not discuss rate limits or response shape, keeping it below 5.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and each clause carries actionable detail (jo formats, efYd semantics, sibling routing). It is dense and somewhat redundant with the schema text, which slightly dilutes conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only lookup with a fully documented 4-param schema and no output schema, the description covers inputs, version-selection behavior, and sibling routing adequately. It omits any note on the returned text's structure or size, which is the only minor gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema's own jo encoding rule (001002 vs 023402) and efYd behavior verbatim rather than adding syntax the schema lacks, so it earns no lift above baseline.

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 opening '[법령조회] 조문 전문 조회' states a specific verb (조회/lookup) and resource (조문 전문 / full text of provisions) in one line. It also names the sibling it is not for applicable-law determination (legal_analysis), letting an agent place it relative to search_law (which supplies mst/lawId) and legal_analysis.

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?

It states prerequisites (mst/lawId 필수), how to narrow to a single article via jo, that natural-language notation is recommended, that current text should be fetched without efYd, and that past versions are reached by setting efYd. It explicitly routes to legal_analysis(mode=applicable_law) for the distinct applicable-law/transitional-measure task.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools