Skip to main content
Glama
seungmiyoon

korean-tax-mcp

by seungmiyoon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

search_tax_rulings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Korean tax rulings and court precedents by keyword to find interpretations and decisions when the specific statute is unknown.

Instructions

Search Korean tax rulings and decisions by keyword. 국세청 해석(질의회신·과세기준자문·사전답변)과 판례(법원·조세심판·이의·심사)를 키워드로 찾는다. 언제: 쟁점은 있는데 조문을 모를 때 첫 단계로. 조문을 알면 rulings_by_article, 사례집 요약만 필요하면 casebook_search. 반환: {결과: [{구분, 문서번호, 제목, 요지(400자), 세목, 일자, id, 링크}], 주의}. 본문은 get_tax_ruling(id). 읽기 전용. 국세법령정보시스템 공개 조회(키 불필요), 같은 요청은 1일 캐시.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nNo종류별 최대 건수 1~30
taxNo세목 필터. 생략하면 전체
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
sortNo최신=등록일 내림차순, 정확도=검색 점수순최신
kindsNo해석=질의회신·과세기준자문·사전답변, 판례=법원·조세심판·이의·심사. 생략하면 둘 다
queryYes쟁점 키워드. 예: '업무무관 가지급금 인정이자', '폐업자 세금계산서 매입세액'
sinceNo등록일 시작 YYYYMMDD (선택)
untilNo등록일 끝 YYYYMMDD (선택)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed13 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / kinds / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "enum": [
+        "해석",
+        "판례"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / kinds / description
      Added value: +"해석=질의회신·과세기준자문·사전답변, 판례=법원·조세심판·이의·심사. 생략하면 둘 다"
    • 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 / n / description
      Added value: +"종류별 최대 건수 1~30"
    • addedInput schema / properties / n / maximum
      Added value: +30
    • addedInput schema / properties / n / minimum
      Added value: +1
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Added value: +"쟁점 키워드. 예: '업무무관 가지급금 인정이자', '폐업자 세금계산서 매입세액'"
    • addedInput schema / properties / since / description
      Added value: +"등록일 시작 YYYYMMDD (선택)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / sort / description
      Added value: +"최신=등록일 내림차순, 정확도=검색 점수순"
    • addedInput schema / properties / sort / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "최신",
+  "정확도"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / tax / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "법인",
+      "부가",
+      "소득",
+      "양도",
+      "상증",
+      "국기",
+      "국징",
+      "조특",
+      "국조",
+      "종부"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / tax / description
      Added value: +"세목 필터. 생략하면 전체"
    • addedInput schema / properties / until / description
      Added value: +"등록일 끝 YYYYMMDD (선택)"
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description adds extra behavioral context: no API key required, NTS public-source query, and a 1-day cache for identical requests. It also discloses the return payload and that full text requires a separate call. That is solid added value, though return-format depth is limited.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then uses labeled sections (언제/반환) to separate usage, return shape, and operational notes. Every line carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description spells out the return object shape (구분, 문서번호, 제목, 요지, 세목, 일자, id, 링크) and points to get_tax_ruling(id) for full text. Combined with routing guidance and operational notes, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 all eight parameters (n, tax, lang, sort, kinds, query, since, until) are documented in the schema with enum meanings and examples. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or defaults beyond what the schema already provides, 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 (search) plus the exact resource — Korean tax rulings and decisions, itemizing the constituent types (해석, 판례). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings rulings_by_article and casebook_search, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

The '언제' (when) line gives a concrete trigger — first step when the issue exists but the statutory article is unknown — and names two alternatives with the condition that selects each (rulings_by_article when the article is known, casebook_search for summary-only needs). This is explicit when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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