read_rulingRead a Korean court, constitutional, tribunal, or legal-interpretation ruling's summary, order, and reasoning by using its source and ID from search results.
find_rulings 결과의 source와 id로 요지·주문·이유 등 본문을 읽습니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| source | Yes | court=법원 판례, constitutional=헌재 결정, tribunal=조세심판원 심판례, moleg=법제처 법령해석례 | |
| sectionsOnly | No | 특정 섹션만 (예: ["판결요지","참조조문"]) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns body content (요지·주문·이유), but it never mentions pagination even though the schema exposes a `cursor` parameter — a meaningful behavioral gap for a document-fetch tool.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, and the dependency on find_rulings output is front-loaded ahead of the content listing.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description usefully names what comes back (요지·주문·이유). For a read-only lookup with annotations, that is nearly sufficient; only the cursor/pagination behavior is left unexplained.
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?
At 50% schema coverage, the description covers the two required parameters (source, id) and implies the returned sections, but says nothing about `cursor` (undocumented in both places) or `sectionsOnly` narrowing. Partial compensation only, so baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb (읽습니다/read) and resource (요지·주문·이유 등 본문) and explicitly positions itself downstream of the sibling find_rulings. An agent can tell immediately that find_rulings searches while read_ruling fetches full text.
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?
The phrase 'find_rulings 결과의 source와 id로' gives a clear usage context: this tool is called after a search, using values from that result. No exclusions or alternative paths are stated, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.