korean-law-alio-mcp

search_nlrc_decisions

Search decisions of Korea's Central Labor Relations Commission on labor disputes, unfair dismissal, and mediation. Filter results by keywords, date, and regulation name for precise legal research.

Instructions

[노동위] 중앙노동위원회 결정문 검색.

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": {
      "display": "<display>",
      "page": "<page>"
    },
    "name": "search_nlrc_decisions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No	검색 키워드 (예: '부당해고', '노동쟁의', '조정')
`display`	Yes	페이지당 결과 개수 (기본값: 20, 최대: 100)
`page`	Yes	페이지 번호 (기본값: 1)
`sort`	No	정렬 옵션: lasc/ldes (법령명순), dasc/ddes (날짜순)
`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, and the brief description does not disclose behavioral traits such as search behavior, rate limits, or scope details beyond the resource name.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence. However, it is too brief to add significant value beyond the tool name.

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 the absence of an output schema and multiple parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, search scope, or provide examples.

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% with each parameter documented. The tool 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states it searches NLRC (Central Labor Committee) decisions, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from many similar sibling search tools for other decision types.

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 other decision search tools. The description lacks any context about typical use cases or when alternatives might be better.

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

Deploy Server