법제처 국가법령정보 공동활용 OpenAPI 기반 MCP 서버 (변호사·로펌 AI 보조, 결과 예측 + 문서 초안 자동화)
CaseLaw MCP has 16 well-named tools with consistent verb_noun patterns (search_*, get_*, find_*). All tools have descriptions (avg ~80 chars, within baseline 34-392). Input schemas are present and typed for all tools. However, parameter descriptions are sparse or missing for many fields (e.g., 'court' in search_precedent lacks detail on valid values; 'display' and 'page' lack range constraints). Output schemas are not documented, LLMs cannot predict response structure. Error handling is absent from visible code. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). Descriptions are functional but terse; they lack WHEN-to-use guidance and dependency hints. Overall: solid foundation, but falls short of production-grade due to underdocumented parameters and missing output schemas.
본문 참조판례 + 사건명 키워드로 관련 판례 추천.
행정심판례 본문 조회.
위원회 결정문 본문 조회. committee 별칭은 search_committee_decision 동일.
헌재결정례 본문 조회.
법령해석례 본문 조회.
판례 본문(판시사항·판결요지·참조조문·참조판례·전문) 조회.
특별행정심판례 본문 조회.
Output schemas not documented. LLMs cannot predict response structure (fields, types, pagination). Agents cannot plan downstream tool calls or extract required data.
Parameter descriptions lack constraints and format guidance. 'court' accepts aliases ('대법원', 'supreme') but no enum or valid-value list. 'display' and 'page' lack min/max bounds. 'date_from'/'date_to' format (YYYYMMDD) stated in description but not in schema.
Inferred effective spec: 2026-07-28+.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | D | 54 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
법령 본문 조회. law_id(권장) 또는 law_name 중 하나.
서버 헬스체크.
행정심판례(국민권익위·각급 행심위) 목록 검색.
위원회 결정문 통합 검색 (12종 위원회).
헌법재판소 결정례 목록 검색.
법령해석례 목록 검색.
대한민국 판례 목록 검색 (대법원·고등·지방법원 등).
특별행정심판례 통합 검색.
대한민국 현행법령 목록 검색 (시행일 기준).
No error handling guidance. Tools do not document what happens on invalid input, API failures, or not-found cases. LLMs have no recovery path.
No tool annotations. Tools lack readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, or idempotentHint. Agents cannot determine which tools are safe to retry or have side effects.
Descriptions lack WHEN-to-use guidance and dependency hints. E.g., search_precedent does not explain when to use 'court' vs 'case_type' filters, or that find_related_precedents requires a prec_id from get_precedent.