Skip to main content
Glama

search_korean_law

Search Korean statutes, precedents, and administrative rules using specific article numbers or keywords. Returns exact article content or summarized results with IDs for full text retrieval.

Instructions

Primary interface for searching Korean laws, precedents, and administrative rules.
It is a "Smart Search" that adapts to the query type.

Capabilities:
1. **Specific Article Lookup** (Preferred):
   - Input: "Civil Act Article 103", "민법 제103조", "Criminal Act 250"
   - Behavior: Returns the *exact content* of the article directly. No need for further steps.
   - Note: Supports both Korean ("민법") and major English names ("Civil Act").

2. **Broad Keyword Search**:
   - Input: "school violence", "학교폭력", "adultery case"
   - Behavior: Returns a summarized list of top results across Statutes, Precedents, and Admin Rules.
   - Output: Includes **Typed IDs** (e.g., `statute:12345`, `prec:67890`) which MUST be used with `read_legal_resource` to get full text.

Usage Tips:
- ALWAYS try to be specific if you know the law name and article number.
- If searching for a case by number, just enter it (e.g., "2010다102991").
- **NEW:** To find specific articles containing keywords (e.g., "credits" in "Higher Education Act"), first search for the law to get its ID, then use `search_law_articles(law_id, "keywords")`.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: for article lookup it returns exact content directly, for broad search it returns a summarized list with Typed IDs for further steps. It also mentions 'Smart Search' adaptation, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured with sections, bullet points, and usage tips. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the single parameter, no annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all needed context: capabilities, input examples, output format, and links to sibling tools. It is complete for the tool's purpose.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has no description for the query parameter (0% coverage), but the description adds extensive meaning through examples and behavior explanation. It clarifies how queries are interpreted (specific article vs broad) and provides exact input formats.

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?

The description clearly states it is the primary interface for searching Korean laws, precedents, and administrative rules, and distinguishes between specific article lookup and broad keyword search. It also differentiates from sibling tools like search_law_articles by noting a separate use case.

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 advises when to use specific article lookup vs broad search, provides tips like 'ALWAYS try to be specific', and directs users to search_law_articles for finding keywords within a law. This gives clear usage context and alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/seo-jinseok/korean-law-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server