Skip to main content
Glama
seungmiyoon

korean-tax-mcp

by seungmiyoon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

law_article

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Korean tax statute text as in force on a chosen date, with optional Act→Decree→Rule delegation chain, to compare point-in-time rules for tax amounts and requirements.

Instructions

Get statute text as in force on a date, with optional Act → Decree → Rule chain. 조문 원문(기준일 시행본)과 3단 위임. 언제: 세액·요건 판단처럼 사실 발생 시점의 법령이 필요할 때. 해석·판례는 회신 당시 법 기준이므로 이 도구로 적용 연도 조문과 대조. 반환: {법령, 조, 적용 시행일, 본문, 링크} 또는 {위임체계: [{단계, 법령, 조, 적용 시행일, 본문}]} (+ 기본통칙·집행기준). 읽기 전용. 법제처 공식 API — 환경변수 LAW_OC(무료) 필요, 없으면 발급 안내 오류.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoOutput language. 'en': English keys and labels, official English texts where available (tax treaties, statutes), titles/summaries machine-translated by Upstage Solar when UPSTAGE_API_KEY is set. 기본 'ko'ko
as_ofNo기준일 YYYYMMDD. 그날 시행 중이던 연혁본. 생략하면 오늘
articleYes조문 번호. '제52조' 또는 '제28조의2' 형식
law_nameYes법령 정식 명칭. 예: '법인세법', '법인세법 시행령', '법인세법 시행규칙'
with_rulesNoTrue면 그 조의 기본통칙 전문과 집행기준 항목도 함께
with_delegationNoTrue면 법률 조문에 연결된 시행령·시행규칙 위임 조문 전부(3단)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / article / description
      Added value: +"조문 번호. '제52조' 또는 '제28조의2' 형식"
    • addedInput schema / properties / as_of / description
      Added value: +"기준일 YYYYMMDD. 그날 시행 중이던 연혁본. 생략하면 오늘"
    • addedInput schema / properties / lang
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "ko",
+  "description": "Output language. 'en': English keys and labels, official English texts where available (tax treaties, statutes), titles/summaries machine-translated by Upstage Solar when UPSTAGE_API_KEY is set. 기본 'ko'",
+  "enum": [
+    "ko",
+    "en"
+  ],
+  "title": "Lang",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / law_name / description
      Added value: +"법령 정식 명칭. 예: '법인세법', '법인세법 시행령', '법인세법 시행규칙'"
    • addedInput schema / properties / with_delegation / description
      Added value: +"True면 법률 조문에 연결된 시행령·시행규칙 위임 조문 전부(3단)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / with_rules / description
      Added value: +"True면 그 조의 기본통칙 전문과 집행기준 항목도 함께"
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds material context beyond them: the required LAW_OC environment variable, the free key requirement, and the failure/error behavior when it is missing. It also describes the return payload shapes, which no output schema provides.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured by 언제/반환, which is easy to scan. The bilingual English/Korean content is mildly redundant but each block serves a purpose, so it earns its length without much waste.

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?

For a read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, temporal semantics, return structure, and the auth prerequisite — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Nothing material is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including as_of date format and the delegation flag. The description echoes the delegation-chain concept and the as-of date framing but adds little syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get statute text as in force on a date') plus a scope qualifier (optional Act → Decree → Rule chain). This clearly distinguishes it from the rulings/case/publication siblings, which retrieve interpretation or precedent rather than statute text.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The '언제' section gives explicit when-to-use guidance (when the law at the time of the fact event matters, e.g., determining tax amounts or requirements) and contrasts with interpretation/precedent tools that use reply-date law. It lacks explicit sibling tool names, so it stops at clear context rather than full routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools