Korean Law MCP

discover_tools

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find specialized Korean legal tools by searching categories like tax appeals, treaties, or terminology when the standard tools do not cover your query.

Instructions

Korean-law-mcp — [메타] 위 도구로 안 되는 경우. 전문도구(조세심판·관세·헌재·행심·공정위·개인정보위·노동위·학칙·조약·영문법령·용어 등 80+개) 카테고리 검색

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "intent": "<intent>"
    },
    "name": "discover_tools"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`intent`	Yes	찾고 싶은 도구의 의도 또는 카테고리 (예: '공정위', '조약', '용어', '헌재')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.9.1Aug 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint as true, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds value by explaining this is a meta/discovery tool that performs category searches across 80+ specialized sub-tools, supplementing the behavioral profile without contradicting the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two clauses that front-load the meta nature and condition, then the core purpose. Every word earns its place—no fluff, and the structure immediately tells the agent when to use this tool.

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?

Given the tool is a simple category search with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation. It explains the fallback context and provides examples. It could slightly improve by briefly hinting at the output format, but this is not critical.

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 description coverage is 100% (the parameter 'intent' has a clear description). The tool description reinforces this by listing example categories (e.g., 공정위, 조약, 용어, 헌재), adding context beyond the schema's generic description. This helps the agent select appropriate input values.

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 it is a category search tool for discovering specialized legal tools when other tools fail. It uses specific verb ('category search') and resource ('specialized tools'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_law and get_law_text by being a meta-discovery fallback.

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?

The description explicitly provides a usage condition: 'When the above tools do not work' ([메타] 위 도구로 안 되는 경우). It also lists example categories for the search, giving agents a clear context for when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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

Deploy Server