Obtain the complete text of a local public corporation or institution regulation using its serial number. Enables detailed analysis of specific rules from Korean public entities.
[공사공단] 지방공사공단 규정 본문 조회.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 규정 일련번호 (검색 결과에서 획득) | |
| 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 are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the purpose without mentioning authentication needs (despite the apiKey parameter), error handling, or any side effects. The agent lacks critical operational context.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with a front-loaded category label. Every word is purposeful with zero redundancy.
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?
Given no output schema and the existence of many sibling tools, the description should explain what the returned text contains (e.g., full regulation body, metadata). It is too brief to fully inform an agent, especially compared to more descriptive siblings.
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 description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it repeats no parameter details. Per guidelines, 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 specifies the verb (조회/inquiry) and resource (지방공사공단 규정 본문) and uses a bracket prefix to distinguish from sibling tools like get_public_institution_rule_text and get_school_rule_text. It is unambiguous and directly states what the tool does.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar sibling tools (e.g., get_ordinance, get_public_institution_rule_text), the absence of contextual usage instructions or exclusions is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.