korean-law-alio-mcp

parse_article_links

Extract embedded legal references from a specific article of Korean law. Provide the article number (jo) and optional law identifiers to retrieve a list of referenced statutes within that article.

Instructions

[분석] 조문 내 법령 참조 추출.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "jo": "<jo>"
    },
    "name": "parse_article_links"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mst`	No	법령일련번호
`lawId`	No	법령ID
`jo`	Yes	조문 번호 (예: '제38조')
`efYd`	No	시행일자 (YYYYMMDD)
`apiKey`	No	법제처 Open API 인증키(OC). 사용자가 제공한 경우 전달

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with '[분석]'. Could include more detail without being verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too lean. It does not explain expected output or prerequisites for using the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states it extracts legal references within articles. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool parse_alio_article_links, which appears to have a similar purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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_alio_article_links or other parsing tools. Agents must infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server