korean-privacy-law-mcp

compare_articles

Compare two Korean legal articles side-by-side to analyze textual differences. Specify each article by law serial number and article number for targeted comparison.

Instructions

두 법령 조문을 side-by-side로 비교 (내부에서 lawService · target=law · JO 두 번 호출). PIPA §15 vs 신용정보법 §32, PIPA §17 vs §18 등 조문 단위 차이 분석에 활용. 각 사이드는 mst+jo 필수, efYd로 시점 지정 가능. diff 자동 추출 X — LLM이 두 본문을 직접 비교해 차이점 정리. 각 사이드 6,000자 절단. 다음: get_law_text(mst)로 전문, search_law(query)로 mst 발견.

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": {
      "left": "<left>",
      "right": "<right>"
    },
    "name": "compare_articles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`left`	Yes	첫 번째 조문
`right`	Yes	두 번째 조문

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.1May 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided; description compensates by detailing internal calls (dual lawService invocations), truncation behavior, and diff absence. Missing details on rate limits or error handling, but overall sufficient.

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?

Description is concise with purpose first, then details. Slightly wordy with technical Korean phrases but overall efficient for the complexity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With nested params and no output schema, description covers internal workflow, truncation, and usage guidance. Minor gap: no mention of return format, but sufficient for agent to use.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions; description adds context by explaining mst comes from search_law, jo supports both Korean and numeric formats, and efYd is time-specific. Adds value beyond schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the tool compares two legal articles side-by-side, with specific examples (PIPA §15 vs §17). It distinguishes from sibling tools like compare_admin_rule_old_new by focusing on general legal articles.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly explains when to use (comparing specific articles), limitations (no auto-diff, 6,000 character truncation per side), and next steps (get_law_text, search_law). Provides clear context for agent decision-making.

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