Extract and match '제N조' article references from Korean ALIO regulation texts, identify external references, and analyze specific articles for precise legal research.
[ALIO] 규정 본문의 '제N조' 참조 추출 + 같은 규정 내 위치 매칭. 외부 참조 가능성도 표시. article 로 특정 조문만 분석.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| institution | Yes | 기관코드 또는 기관명 | |
| regId | No | ||
| title | No | regId 대신 사용 가능 | |
| article | No | 특정 조문만 분석 (예: '제15조'). 생략 시 전체 본문 | |
| max | Yes | 최대 참조 표시 (기본:50) |
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 should disclose behavioral traits. It only states main actions without mentioning whether it is read-only, output format, rate limits, or side effects. Minimal transparency beyond 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?
The description is two sentences, efficient, and front-loaded with main functionality. No redundancy; every word adds value.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks vital context such as return format, differentiation from similar siblings (e.g., parse_article_links), and prerequisites (e.g., institution requirement). Insufficient for an agent to use confidently.
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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the article parameter ('특정 조문만 분석') but does not elaborate on other parameters like regId or title beyond schema descriptions. Marginal value added.
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 explicitly states the tool extracts '제N조' references from ALIO regulation text, matches positions within the regulation, and marks external references. The [ALIO] prefix differentiates it from sibling parse_article_links, and the optional article parameter is noted.
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 like parse_article_links or analyze_alio_regulation. The description implies using it for reference extraction but lacks explicit context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.