Track amendments to Korean laws, automatically comparing old and new provisions and article history for questions about changes. Input a law name to get a chained comparison of amendments.
[⛓체인] 개정 추적. 신구대조+조문이력 자동 연쇄. 개정/변경 질문 시.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | 법령명 (예: '관세법', '지방세특례제한법') | |
| mst | No | 법령일련번호 (알고 있으면) | |
| lawId | No | 법령ID (알고 있으면) | |
| apiKey | No |
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'automatic chaining' but does not explain side effects, data sources, permissions, rate limits, or return format. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 short sentence with a usage hint, no repetition, and front-loads the core function. It is concise but could be slightly more structured to improve clarity.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and many sibling tools, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., format, structure). It mentions chaining old-new comparison and history but omits output details, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand.
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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions; it only reiterates the overall purpose. With moderate schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose: tracking legal amendments with old-new comparison and article history. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'chain_' tools like chain_law_system or chain_full_research, which also deal with legal analysis.
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?
The description suggests usage 'when asking about amendment/change' but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to other chain tools. The context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.