Compare three-tier legal structure (law, enforcement decree, enforcement rules) to examine delegation and citation clauses between them.
[비교] 3단비교(법률-시행령-시행규칙) 위임조문/인용조문.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mst | No | 법령일련번호 | |
| lawId | No | 법령ID | |
| knd | Yes | 1=인용조문, 2=위임조문 (기본값) | 2 |
| 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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as safety, destructive potential, rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. The burden falls entirely on the description, which is insufficient. The parameter apiKey implies authentication needs, but this is not stated explicitly.
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 short sentence, which is concise but not necessarily structured. It front-loads the tool's purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, so it does not fully earn 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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, how the comparison works, or what users can expect. A comparison tool needs more context to be useful.
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). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only states the tool's purpose. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the job.
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 indicates the tool performs a three-tier comparison (법률-시행령-시행규칙) of delegated/cited clauses. The Korean text '[비교] 3단비교' directly states the function. However, it does not distinguish itself from numerous sibling tools that also compare or retrieve legislation, so clarity is high but not perfect.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_articles or get_law_text. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or typical use cases. The description fails to help an agent decide between this and many similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.