korean-law-alio-mcp

get_admin_rule

Retrieve the full text of a Korean administrative rule using its ID (obtained from search_admin_rule). Get complete regulatory details for analysis or reference.

Instructions

[행정규칙] 행정규칙 전문 조회.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_admin_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	행정규칙ID (search_admin_rule에서 획득)
`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

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, and the description only says 'retrieve full text'. It does not disclose whether this is a read operation (implied), any authentication requirements beyond the API key, or error behavior for invalid IDs.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified. Conciseness is good but at the expense of necessary detail.

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 no output schema and a simple retrieval tool, the description could mention the return format or any limitations. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to understand what the full text contains.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the tool retrieves the full text of an administrative rule, which is clear but essentially restates the tool name. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ordinance' or 'get_law_text', which also retrieve full texts of specific document types.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an ID from search_admin_rule) or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server