Retrieve the hierarchical structure of higher, subordinate, and related laws for a given statute. Analyze delegation and authorization relationships between laws to understand the legal framework.
[체계] 상위법·하위법·관련법령 관계 조회. 법령 간 위임 관계 파악용.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lawId | No | 법령ID (search_law에서 획득) | |
| mst | No | 법령일련번호 (MST) | |
| lawName | No | 법령명 | |
| apiKey | No | 법제처 Open API 인증키(OC). 사용자가 제공한 경우 전달 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only hints at purpose. Does not disclose what happens with no required parameters, whether it modifies data, rate limits, or output structure. Carries full burden but fails to add behavioral context beyond a vague purpose.
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?
Single sentence with clear purpose, front-loaded. Concise but may benefit from slightly more detail on output. Not verbose, earns its place.
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?
No output schema; description does not explain return format (tree structure, list, etc.). Complex hierarchical query tool with 4 optional params – agent needs more context on how to invoke and what to expect. Incomplete for effective use.
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?
Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no extra meaning beyond 'lawId', 'mst', 'lawName', 'apiKey' – baseline 3. No additional semantics for required vs optional.
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?
Description clearly states it queries upper, lower, and related law relationships for understanding delegation relations. Specific verb ('조회') and resource ('상위법·하위법·관련법령 관계') distinguish it from sibling tools like get_law_tree or get_delegated_laws.
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?
Implied usage for exploring hierarchical/delegation links, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations. Among many similar tools, guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.