Skip to main content
Glama
lawchat-oss

mcp-taiwan-legal-db

by lawchat-oss

get_sentencing_statistics

Retrieve Taiwan court sentencing statistics for past judgments by crime, law, court, year, and factors. Shows case counts, average, max, min, and distribution.

Instructions

司法院事實型量刑資訊系統的刑度統計(符合條件的判決數、各刑種平均/最高/最低與分布)。

涵蓋 10 類案件:殺人、強盜搶奪、傷害、不能安全駕駛、肇事逃逸、詐欺、竊盜、毒品、槍砲、妨害性自主。 這是過去判決的統計,不是量刑基準。

用法:不給 crime 先列出罪名與法院;給 crime 後回傳可選的法條(law_options)、量刑因子(factor_options) 與目前條件的統計,再依需要加上 law、court、factors 縮小範圍。

Args: crime: 罪名(如「竊盜」「詐欺」,或系統代碼 stole、fraud…) law: 法條選項,可用逗號分隔多個(如「第320條第1項」) court: 法院,可用逗號分隔多個(如「臺北地院」) factors: 量刑因子,格式「因子=選項」,多個以分號分隔(如「累犯=是;坦承犯行=是」) year_from: 起始年度(民國年) year_to: 截止年度(民國年)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lawNo
courtNo
crimeNo
factorsNo
year_toNo
year_fromNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.7.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: a mode-dependent (two-phase) response that depends on whether crime is supplied, the content shape of the statistics, and an interpretive caveat that this is not a sentencing benchmark. Auth, pagination and error behavior are not covered.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then coverage, caveat, usage flow, and argument reference in a logical order. It is longer than average but each block (coverage list, workflow, arg formats) carries information the schema does not.

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 6-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the return content, the interactive flow, and per-parameter formats. The main remaining gap is that it never explains how it differs from the other statistics siblings in the toolset.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: crime accepts a name or system code (stole, fraud), law and court accept comma-separated multiples, factors uses the 因子=選項;因子=選項 format with a concrete example, and year_from/year_to are identified as 民國年. All six parameters are given usable syntax.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 司法院事實型量刑資訊系統的刑度統計, and specifies exactly what is returned (符合條件的判決數、各刑種平均/最高/最低與分布). It also names the 10 covered case categories. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling statistics tools such as get_statistics or search_statistics.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly describes the workflow: without crime it lists crime names and courts; with crime it returns law_options, factor_options and current statistics, then narrows with law/court/factors. It also warns the data is past-judgment statistics, not sentencing guidelines. No sibling alternative is named, so it stops short of 5.

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