Convert Korean legal article numbers (e.g., '제38조') to JO codes (e.g., '003800') and vice versa. Supports law (AAAABB) and ordinance (AABBCC) formats.
[유틸] 조문번호 ↔ JO코드 변환.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| joText | Yes | 변환할 조문 번호 (예: '제38조', '10조의2', '003800', '010000') | |
| direction | Yes | 변환 방향: to_code (한글→코드) 또는 to_text (코드→한글) | to_code |
| lawType | Yes | 법령 유형: law (법률/시행령/시행규칙, AAAABB 형식) 또는 ordinance (자치법규, AABBCC 형식) | law |
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 carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral info. It doesn't disclose safety, auth needs, or side effects beyond being a conversion.
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?
Very concise (one sentence), but could be expanded slightly without being verbose. Adequate but not optimally informative.
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?
Lacks output description; no output schema provided, so description should explain return value format. Does not address edge cases or error states.
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?
Description adds value beyond schema by providing example values and explaining direction and lawType options and formats. Schema coverage is 100%, but examples enrich meaning.
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?
Description clearly states it converts between article numbers and JO codes, using a verb ('변환') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings as a utility conversion tool.
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 vs alternatives. It does not specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.