korean-law-alio-mcp

get_batch_alio_regulations

Batch fetch up to 20 Korean public institution regulations by specifying institution, regulation ID, and optionally article. Reduces token usage and API calls compared to single queries.

Instructions

[ALIO] 여러 규정/조문 일괄 조회 (최대 20건). 각 항목에 institution+regId+article 지정. 단건 호출 반복보다 토큰/호출 효율적.

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": {
      "items": "<items>",
      "bodyChars": "<bodyChars>"
    },
    "name": "get_batch_alio_regulations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	조회할 규정 목록 (최대 20건)
`bodyChars`	Yes	규정당 본문 최대 글자 수 (article 미지정 시 적용, 기본:2000)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions a limit of 20 items and bodyChars default/min/max, but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires special permissions. Safety and side effects are not disclosed.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and efficiency in the second. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the complexity of a batch tool with nested items, the description covers the operation's scope and limits (max 20) but does not explain the return format, error handling, or how the response structures multiple results. Without an output schema, more detail would be helpful.

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%, so the description's added value is baseline. It states 'institution+regId+article 지정' but the schema shows only institution as required and article as optional, creating slight ambiguity. It does not clarify the relationship between regId and title or the format of institution.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it is for batch retrieval of regulations/articles (일괄 조회) with a max of 20 items. It specifies required components per item (institution+regId+article) and highlights efficiency over repeated single calls, distinguishing it from single-regulation tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description says to use when querying multiple regulations and implies efficiency, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool nor compare it to alternatives like get_batch_articles or sequential single calls. It provides some context but lacks exclusion criteria.

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

Deploy Server