Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
opendart-fss-mcp

opendart-fss-mcp

by hypn4
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

event_litigation

Read-only

Search for litigation events using corporate code and optional date range. Query Korea's DART disclosure system to retrieve official lawsuit data for financial analysis.

Instructions

소송을 조회합니다.

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": {
      "corp_code": "<corp_code>"
    },
    "name": "event_litigation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
corp_codeYes고유번호 (8자리)
bgn_deNo시작일 (YYYYMMDD)
end_deNo종료일 (YYYYMMDD)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond confirming it's a read operation. No mention of pagination, rate limits, or data volume specifics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence. It is concise but may be too minimal to convey adequate information about the tool's scope.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, given the broad set of sibling tools, the description lacks context on what litigation events are included, making it only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters described). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool queries litigation (소송을 조회합니다), which is a clear action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from many sibling event_* tools that also query specific events, so the purpose is generic.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like other event queries. With many sibling tools, explicit usage guidance is missing.

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