Skip to main content
Glama

APICK Business

by app.apick
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

개인통관고유부호 인증 요청

req_pccc

Request simple authentication (KakaoTalk, Toss, PASS, etc.) to retrieve a Korean Personal Customs Clearance Code (PCCC). 이름, 생년월일, 휴대전화번호와 간편인증 방식을 입력하면 해당 휴대폰으로 인증 요청이 발송되고, 응답을 기다리지 않고 tx_id 를 즉시 반환합니다. 인증 요청이 실제 발송된 접수 시점에 과금되며, 이미 대기 중인 요청을 다시 보내면 재발송 없이 기존 tx_id 를 반환하고 과금되지 않습니다. 사용자가 휴대폰에서 승인한 뒤 get_pccc 에 tx_id 를 넣어 결과를 확인하세요. [호출당 20포인트]

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes이름
phoneYes휴대전화 번호 (본인 명의, 숫자만)
birthdayYes생년월일 8자리 (YYYYMMDD)
providerYes간편인증 방식 (kakao, naver, toss, pass, samsung, kb, shinhan, hana, woori, ibk, nh, kakaobank, banksalad)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / birthday / description
      Previous value: -"생년월일 8자리(YYYYMMDD) 또는 주민등록번호 13자리"New value: +"생년월일 8자리 (YYYYMMDD)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / ttlMs
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "인증 유효 시간(ms, 기본 600000, 최대 1800000)",
-  "type": "number"
-}
  2. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / birthday
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "생년월일 8자리(YYYYMMDD) 또는 주민등록번호 13자리",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / provider
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "간편인증 방식 (kakao, naver, toss, pass, samsung, kb, shinhan, hana, woori, ibk, nh, kakaobank, banksalad)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / rrn1
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "주민등록번호 앞 6자리",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / rrn2
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "주민등록번호 뒤 7자리",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / ttlMs
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "인증 유효 시간(ms, 기본 600000, 최대 1800000)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "rrn1",
-  "rrn2",
-  "phone"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "birthday",
+  "phone",
+  "provider"
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it returns tx_id immediately without waiting, billing occurs at dispatch time, duplicate pending requests return the existing tx_id with no resend or charge, and the cost is 20 points per call. These are exactly the side-effect and cost facts an agent needs, none of which the hints convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then mechanism, then billing/dedupe, then next step, then price tag. Every sentence carries information, though the bilingual phrasing and the cost annotation at the end make it slightly denser than needed for one call.

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 explains the return value (tx_id), that the call is asynchronous, and how to retrieve the final result via get_pccc. For a 4-required-param mutation tool with no output schema, nothing material 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents name, phone (own-name, digits only), birthday format YYYYMMDD, and the full provider list. The description only restates the field set generically, adding no format or validation nuance beyond the schema, 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 (request simple authentication) and resource (Korean Personal Customs Clearance Code), naming the supported providers (KakaoTalk, Toss, PASS, etc.). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_pccc, which it explicitly positions as the follow-up step.

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 two-step workflow is spelled out: call this to dispatch an auth request, then call get_pccc with the returned tx_id after the user approves on their phone. Edge-case behavior (re-sending a pending request) is also routed explicitly, leaving nothing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All APICK Business toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources