XBOSS

교통민원24 로그인

efine__session__login

Call this FIRST before any other tool for this provider. 법인 인증서로 로그인하고 교통민원24 조회 도구들이 함께 쓰는 세션을 저장합니다. 도구가 세션이 만료됐다고 알리면 다시 호출합니다. For an authenticated call, generate and save request_idempotency_key before the first request. Reuse it with the same arguments only to recover that request after a lost response; use a new key for a new execution. Without it, calling again remains a new request. This optional key is not available to anonymous taste calls. Keep any provider-specific idempotency_key unchanged; it is a different field. 호출마다 토큰 1소진 요청 처리 시 XBOSS 작업을 생성하고 처리 결과를 저장합니다. 기관 원본의 조회 여부와 별개로 이 호출은 순수 읽기 전용이 아닙니다. 기관 데이터 변경은 도구별 실행 내용과 기존 확인 절차를 따릅니다.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "business_registration_no": "<business_registration_no>",
      "company_name": "<company_name>"
    },
    "name": "efine__session__login"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`company_name`	Yes	상호(법인명) - 사업자등록증의 상호와 같게.
`account_link_id`	No	연동 ID(UUID v4). 선택 입력입니다. 비워 두면 서버가 API 키로 연동을 찾아 씁니다. 같은 기관에 인증서를 여러 개 연동했을 때만 직접 입력해 주세요. 기관마다 ID 가 다릅니다.
`request_idempotency_key`	No	Optional same-request recovery key for authenticated calls; see the tool description.
`business_registration_no`	Yes	사업자등록번호 - 숫자 열 자리(하이픈 없이). 예: 1234567890.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them ('이 호출은 순수 읽기 전용이 아닙니다'). It adds real behavioral facts the annotations lack: a cost of one token per call (호출마다 토큰 1소진), creation of an XBOSS task with stored results, and the rule that provider-side data changes follow each tool's own confirmation flow. Points are deducted for the garbled clause about 'anonymous taste calls,' which is not intelligible to an agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The critical instruction is front-loaded, which is good, but the body is bloated with boilerplate about idempotency-key naming, a broken clause, and Korean/English mixing that slows parsing. Several sentences do not clearly earn their place for a login tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a session-establishing login with no output schema, the description covers enough: initial call ordering, session persistence, expiry recovery, per-call token cost, and the side-effect caveat. It is missing only failure-mode guidance (what to do if the certificate or account link is invalid).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is complete (100%), so the baseline is 3; the description earns a 4 because it supplies the meaning the schema defers ('see the tool description') for request_idempotency_key: when to generate it, when reuse is legitimate (recovering a lost response with identical arguments), and when a new key is required.

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?

The description states a concrete verb and resource: log in with a corporate certificate (법인 인증서) to 교통민원24 and persist a session that the query tools share. It also names the provider's sibling query tools indirectly ('교통민원24 조회 도구들'), so an agent can tell this apart from the other providers' session logins.

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?

It gives an explicit ordering rule ('Call this FIRST before any other tool for this provider') and an explicit re-invocation trigger ('도구가 세션이 만료됐다고 알리면 다시 호출합니다'), plus idempotency-key recovery rules. This is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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

All XBOSS tools Inspect

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

Need Help?