Fetch Korean commercial registration precedents with pagination. Filter by current status or view all, and adjust page size to locate relevant legal examples.
상업등기선례 목록을 페이지별로 조회합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 페이지 번호 (1부터 시작, 기본: 1) | |
| pageSize | No | 페이지당 항목 수 (기본: 20) | |
| status_badge | No | 현행만 조회할지 전체를 조회할지 (기본: all) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a paginated listing operation ('페이지별로 조회'), implying a read-style behavior. However, it does not mention sorting, filtering behavior beyond the schema parameters, or any operational constraints.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It immediately conveys the core action and pagination scope, which is appropriately concise for a straightforward list 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 schema fully covers parameters, but there is no output schema and no explanation of what fields each precedent entry contains. More importantly, it lacks guidance for choosing this tool over search_precedents, which is a significant contextual gap given the sibling tools.
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?
The schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters, and coverage is 100%. The description adds only the general pagination idea already present in the parameter names and descriptions, so it does not meaningfully enrich parameter understanding.
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 clearly states the action ('조회합니다' = retrieves) and the resource ('상업등기선례 목록' = commercial registration precedent list), and adds pagination context ('페이지별로'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the sibling search_precedents beyond the generic word '목록'.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the siblings, such as search_precedents or get_precedent_by_number. The description only describes what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.