XBOSS

증명서 발급 사실 확인

fourinsure__b1__certificate__issue_fact__confirm

REQUIRES prior fourinsure__session__login call with same account_link_id. Confirm certificate issuance fact. 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": {
      "join_kind_cd": "<join_kind_cd>",
      "issu_no": "<issu_no>"
    },
    "name": "fourinsure__b1__certificate__issue_fact__confirm"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bpmno`	No	사업장관리번호 숫자 11자리. 사업장 증명(join_kind_cd 가 0, 2, 3)을 확인할 때 반드시 입력합니다.
`issu_no`	Yes	증명서에 적힌 발급번호를 그대로 입력합니다.
`idnty_nm`	No	증명서에 적힌 가입자 성명. 가입자 증명(join_kind_cd 가 1)을 확인할 때 반드시 입력합니다.
`frnt_rrno`	No	가입자 주민등록번호 앞 6자리(생년월일). 가입자 증명(join_kind_cd 가 1)을 확인할 때 반드시 입력합니다. 입력값은 작업 기록에 저장되고 응답에는 싣지 않습니다.
`join_kind_cd`	Yes	증명서 종류 코드. 사업장 증명은 0, 2, 3 이고 bpmno 를 함께 입력합니다. 가입자 증명은 1 이고 idnty_nm 과 frnt_rrno 를 함께 입력합니다.
`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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that each call consumes one token, that processing creates an XBOSS job and stores the result, and that this is not a pure read operation despite the "confirm" naming — consistent with readOnlyHint=false and valuable for planning. It does not describe permissions, failure modes, or response contents, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 prerequisite and idempotency rules are front-loaded, which is good, but the idempotency topic sprawls across five sentences with overlapping restatements (reuse vs new key vs 'without it, calling again remains a new request'). The trailing Korean block adds substantive behavior facts but sits after a long preamble.

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 7-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the definition covers prerequisites, side effects, cost, and key management, which is substantial. The notable remaining gap is that, with no output schema, it never says what the confirmation returns or which values indicate a valid vs invalid issuance fact.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by tying account_link_id to the login prerequisite and by giving detailed semantics for request_idempotency_key (generate before first call, reuse only to recover a lost response, distinct from a provider-specific idempotency_key). Those clarifications genuinely extend the schema's one-line pointer to the description.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb-object pair, "Confirm certificate issuance fact," which matches the tool name and tells an agent precisely what operation is performed. It does not differentiate this tool from sibling lookups such as certificate__history__detail, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It states a hard prerequisite ("REQUIRES prior fourinsure__session__login call with same account_link_id") and explains idempotency-key lifecycle, which is useful invocation context. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the certificate history or apply siblings, leaving the alternative-selection question to inference.

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?