Search historical versions of Korean laws by law name. Set the number of results (1-100) to retrieve past enactments and amendments from the Korean law database.
[이력] 연혁법령 검색.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lawName | Yes | 법령명 (예: '관세법', '민법', '형법') | |
| display | Yes | 결과 개수 (기본값: 50) | |
| apiKey | No | 법제처 Open API 인증키(OC). 사용자가 제공한 경우 전달 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, search mechanics, or pagination. Bare minimum.
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?
Extremely concise, no fluff, but lacks necessary detail. Under-specification hinders usability.
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?
Description is insufficient for a 3-parameter search tool with no output schema. Missing context on search scope, result format, and optional apiKey usage.
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 has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?
Description clearly states verb 'search' and resource 'historical laws', distinguishing from sibling tools like search_law and get_historical_law. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar search tools.
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 (e.g., search_law for current laws, get_historical_law for specific retrieval). Implied usage only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/scvcoder/korean-law-alio-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server