Retrieve higher-level statutes that are the legal basis for a given local ordinance or rule. Input an ordinance name to find linked parent laws.
[연계] 자치법규 기준 상위법령 조회. 조례/규칙의 근거 법령 확인.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | 자치법규명 (예: '서울특별시 주차장 설치 및 관리 조례') | |
| display | Yes | 결과 개수 (기본:20, 최대:100) | |
| page | Yes | 페이지 번호 (기본:1) | |
| apiKey | No | 법제처 Open API 인증키(OC) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. It does not disclose behavioral traits like that it queries an external API, returns a list of laws, or requires an API key (though the apiKey param exists). The tool's read-only nature is implied but not stated.
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?
Two sentences in Korean, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words, but could benefit from a brief note on usage context or output structure.
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?
The description is too brief given the lack of output schema and annotations. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or that the tool relies on an external API, leaving the agent with insufficient context to properly invoke the tool.
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% with clear descriptions for all four parameters (query, display, page, apiKey). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool retrieves higher-level statutes linked to a local ordinance (자치법규 기준 상위법령 조회) and emphasizes checking the legal basis of ordinances/rules. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_related_laws 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_regulations_by_upper_law or get_delegated_laws. The description provides context but no exclusion or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.