Skip to main content
Glama

search_search_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Korean law topics with real-time statute verification from law.go.kr. Get legal information and consultations for Korean law questions.

Instructions

Search

Responses:

200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json

Output Schema:

{}

422: Validation Error Content-Type: application/json

Example Response:

{
  "detail": [
    {
      "loc": [],
      "msg": "Message",
      "type": "Error Type"
    }
  ]
}

Output Schema:

{
  "properties": {
    "detail": {
      "items": {
        "properties": {
          "loc": {
            "items": {},
            "type": "array",
            "title": "Location"
          },
          "msg": {
            "type": "string",
            "title": "Message"
          },
          "type": {
            "type": "string",
            "title": "Error Type"
          }
        },
        "type": "object",
        "required": [
          "loc",
          "msg",
          "type"
        ],
        "title": "ValidationError"
      },
      "type": "array",
      "title": "Detail"
    }
  },
  "type": "object",
  "title": "HTTPValidationError"
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qYesSearch query for Korean law topics (min 2 chars, max 200 chars). Example: '근로기준법'
limitNoMaximum number of results to return (1-100, default 10)
Behavior2/5

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

The description documents HTTP 422 validation error behavior, which adds value beyond annotations. However, it fails to describe what a successful search returns (the 200 response schema is empty) or explain result ranking, pagination behavior, or result source limitations. Annotations adequately cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive).

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Poorly structured with critical information (purpose) front-loaded as a single word, followed by verbose, low-value HTTP status code documentation that occupies most of the text. The HTTP schema details are noise for tool selection purposes.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Incomplete given the lack of output schema (empty {}) and presence of semantically similar siblings. The description fails to explain return value structure, search scope, or differentiate from conversational 'ask' alternatives. Relies entirely on parameter schema and annotations for basic context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameters are fully self-documenting ('q' explains Korean law context with examples, 'limit' explains range). The description adds no parameter guidance, meeting the baseline expectation for well-schematized tools.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description provides only the tautological word 'Search' before devolving into HTTP response documentation. It fails to specify the resource being searched (Korean law) or distinguish from sibling 'ask' tools. While the parameter schema implies the domain via the 'q' parameter example, the description itself lacks specificity.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling ask_ask_post, ask_expert_ask_expert_post, or chat tools. No prerequisites, filtering limitations, or selection criteria are mentioned.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/peter120525-cmd/lawmadi-os-v60'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server