Look up a specific Korean commercial registration precedent using its precedent number. Get the official ruling from the Supreme Court portal for legal research.
예규번호로 특정 상업등기선례를 조회합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| regNo | Yes | 예규번호 (예: 제 2-116호, 제 1-346호) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. The verb '조회' conveys a read-only lookup, which is the most important behavioral trait for a getter. However, it does not disclose not-found behavior, whether the lookup is exact-match only, or any constraints beyond the number.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The core action, resource, and lookup key are all present, and the sentence earns its place for a one-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one fully documented parameter, no nested objects), so the description is largely sufficient for calling it. With no output schema and no annotations, the description could still note what is returned and what happens when the number matches nothing, leaving a modest gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the regNo property already includes a description with format examples (제 2-116호). The description merely restates that the lookup is by number, adding no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (조회/retrieve), a specific resource (특정 상업등기선례/specific commercial registration precedent), and the keying method (예규번호로/by precedent number). The explicit lookup key distinguishes this from siblings search_precedents and list_precedents, so an agent can select it correctly without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus search_precedents (keyword queries) or list_precedents (browsing). The intended context — 'you already know the exact precedent number' — is only implied by the tool name and the single required parameter, never explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.