Search legal terms from a Korean law knowledge base, including homonyms and term relationships. Query specific terms to retrieve definitions, related concepts, and contextual information.
[지식베이스] 법령용어 검색. 동음이의어·용어관계 포함.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | 검색할 법령용어 | |
| display | Yes | 결과 수 (기본:20) | |
| page | Yes | 페이지 (기본:1) | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description only provides basic search behavior and content scope. It does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. However, it does indicate included features (homonyms, relationships), which is helpful.
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?
Extremely concise single line that conveys the essential purpose and unique features. No unnecessary words.
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?
Adequate for a simple search tool with full schema coverage. Lacks details on pagination behavior and output structure, but the schema provides parameter specifics. Could be improved by mentioning pagination or result format.
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 100%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, but this is acceptable given the schema completeness.
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 action ('검색' = search) and resource ('법령용어' = legal terms), and adds that it includes homonyms and term relationships, distinguishing it from generic search tools like 'search_legal_terms'.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_legal_terms' or 'get_legal_term_detail'. The description does not mention context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.