Skip to main content
Glama

get_appeal_review_decision_text

Retrieve the full text of a specific appeal review decision from the Appeal Review Committee using its unique ID. Enables access to official decision records.

Instructions

[소청심사] 소청심사위원회 재결례 전문.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes특별행정심판재결례일련번호 (검색 결과에서 획득)
apiKeyNo법제처 Open API 인증키(OC). 사용자가 제공한 경우 전달

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler for the get_appeal_review_decision_text tool. Delegates to getSpecialAppealText with target 'adapSpecialDecc' and label '소청심사위원회 재결례'.
    export async function getAppealReviewDecisionText(apiClient: LawApiClient, args: GetAppealReviewDecisionTextInput) {
      return getSpecialAppealText(apiClient, args, "adapSpecialDecc", "소청심사위원회 재결례");
    }
  • Shared helper function that fetches the appeal review decision text from the lawService.do endpoint with target 'adapSpecialDecc', parses the JSON response from SpecialDeccService, and formats the decision details (case info, ruling summary, order, claim, reasoning, etc.).
    async function getSpecialAppealText(
      apiClient: LawApiClient,
      args: { id: string; apiKey?: string },
      target: string,
      label: string
    ): Promise<{ content: Array<{ type: string; text: string }>; isError?: boolean }> {
      try {
        const responseText = await apiClient.fetchApi({
          endpoint: "lawService.do",
          target,
          type: "JSON",
          extraParams: { ID: args.id },
          apiKey: args.apiKey,
        });
    
        let data: any;
        try { data = JSON.parse(responseText); } catch { throw new Error("Failed to parse JSON response from API"); }
    
        if (!data.SpecialDeccService) {
          throw new Error(`${label}을(를) 찾을 수 없거나 응답 형식이 올바르지 않습니다.`);
        }
    
        const decc = data.SpecialDeccService;
        let output = `=== ${decc.사건명 || label} ===\n\n`;
    
        output += `기본 정보:\n`;
        output += `  사건번호: ${decc.사건번호 || "N/A"}\n`;
        if (decc.청구번호) output += `  청구번호: ${decc.청구번호}\n`;
        if (decc.처분일자) output += `  처분일: ${decc.처분일자}\n`;
        if (decc.의결일자) output += `  의결일: ${decc.의결일자}\n`;
        if (decc.처분청) output += `  처분청: ${decc.처분청}\n`;
        if (decc.재결청) output += `  재결청: ${decc.재결청}\n`;
        if (decc.재결례유형명) output += `  유형: ${decc.재결례유형명}\n`;
        output += `\n`;
    
        if (decc.재결요지) output += `재결요지:\n${decc.재결요지}\n\n`;
        if (decc.주문) output += `주문:\n${decc.주문}\n\n`;
        if (decc.청구취지) output += `청구취지:\n${decc.청구취지}\n\n`;
        if (decc.이유) output += `이유:\n${decc.이유}\n\n`;
        if (decc.따른결정) output += `따른결정:\n${decc.따른결정}\n\n`;
        if (decc.참조결정) output += `참조결정:\n${decc.참조결정}\n\n`;
        if (decc.관련법령) output += `관련법령:\n${decc.관련법령}\n`;
    
        return { content: [{ type: "text", text: truncateResponse(output) }] };
      } catch (error) {
        return formatToolError(error, `get_${target}_text`);
      }
    }
  • Zod schema for the tool. Expects an 'id' (string, required) and optional 'apiKey' (string).
    export const getAppealReviewDecisionTextSchema = z.object(baseTextSchema);
    export type GetAppealReviewDecisionTextInput = z.infer<typeof getAppealReviewDecisionTextSchema>;
  • Base schema definition shared by all special appeal text tools, defining the 'id' and 'apiKey' fields.
    const baseTextSchema = {
      id: z.string().describe("특별행정심판재결례일련번호 (검색 결과에서 획득)"),
      apiKey: z.string().optional().describe("법제처 Open API 인증키(OC). 사용자가 제공한 경우 전달"),
    };
  • Registration of the tool in the central tool registry with name 'get_appeal_review_decision_text', description, schema, and handler reference.
    {
      name: "get_appeal_review_decision_text",
      description: "[소청심사] 소청심사위원회 재결례 전문.",
      schema: getAppealReviewDecisionTextSchema,
      handler: getAppealReviewDecisionText
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It merely states 'full text' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is safe/read-only. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or constraints.

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?

Very concise single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the relevant prefix. However, it may be overly minimal given the lack of other details.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description is too sparse for a tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools. It does not explain the return format, how to use the id parameter, or any prerequisites. Completeness is insufficient.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it retrieves the full text of an appeal review decision (소청심사위원회 재결례 전문). The prefix '[소청심사]' helps distinguish it from similar sibling tools like get_acr_decision_text or get_admin_appeal_text, but no explicit differentiation is provided.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other get_*_decision_text tools or when to use it after search_appeal_review_decisions. The description lacks 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/workbookbulb863/korean-law-alio-mcp'

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