find_admin_ruleFind specific tax administrative rules and government guidelines. Query regulations by keyword or retrieve the full text using the official ID.
국세청·재정경제부 등의 행정규칙(훈령·예규·고시, 예: 법인세 사무처리규정)을 검색하거나(query), id로 본문을 읽습니다. 국세청 기본통칙·집행기준은 법제처 자료에 없으므로 국세법령정보시스템에서 확인해야 합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | 검색 결과의 행정규칙 id → 본문 조회 | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | 행정규칙명 키워드 (예: 법인세 기본통칙) | |
| cursor | No | ||
| inBody | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the coverage gap for 국세청 기본통칙 and the dual search-vs-fetch-by-id mode of operation. It does not mention pagination behavior or result-set shape, which keeps it from a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the search-and-read capability, with the source-coverage caveat following as a natural qualifier. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical examples slightly crowd the first sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With five parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers the core usage story and the key data-source limitation. However, it leaves the agent without any notion of pagination (limit/cursor) or what inBody toggles, which is a meaningful gap for a paginated search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate — but it only restates the two parameters the schema already documents (query, id). limit, cursor, and especially inBody are undocumented anywhere, and inBody is behaviorally significant enough that an agent cannot infer its effect from the name alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource (행정규칙 — 훈령·예규·고시) and two concrete operations: keyword search via query and body retrieval via id, with a worked example (법인세 사무처리규정). It is clearly distinguishable from find_statute/read_provision by resource type, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a genuine routing signal by stating that 국세청 기본통칙·집행기준 are absent from 법제처 data and must be looked up in 국세법령정보시스템 — an explicit 'this tool will not cover that' exclusion. It stops short of naming a sibling tool to use for the alternative source, so the agent must infer the fallback.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.