korean-law-alio-mcp

compare_articles

Compare two Korean law articles by specifying their article numbers and law identifiers. Get a detailed comparison highlighting differences and similarities.

Instructions

[비교] 두 법령 조문 비교.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "law1": "<law1>",
      "law2": "<law2>"
    },
    "name": "compare_articles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`law1`	Yes	첫 번째 법령 정보
`law2`	Yes	두 번째 법령 정보
`apiKey`	No	법제처 Open API 인증키(OC). 사용자가 제공한 경우 전달

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must supply behavioral context. It merely states 'compare' without disclosing side effects, permissions, or whether it is read-only. The minimal description does not compensate for missing annotations.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence. However, it is in Korean, which may hinder an English-oriented AI agent. Still, it is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, three parameters, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the comparison returns or how the results are structured, leaving the agent without critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly indicates the tool compares two legislative articles ('법령 조문 비교') with a tag '[비교]' to suggest its function. However, it does not specify what aspect of the articles is compared (e.g., text, structure), leaving some ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling comparison tools (e.g., compare_admin_rule_old_new, compare_alio_articles). The description lacks context for distinguishing usage scenarios.

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

Deploy Server