XBOSS

4대보험 공통코드 목록

fourinsure__b1__common__com_cd__list

REQUIRES prior fourinsure__session__login call with same account_link_id. 자격취득·상실 신고서의 사유·직종 칸에 넣는 공통코드(코드 값과 이름)를 분류 아이디별로 조회합니다(예: B112, D114, A101). 조회만 하며 기관에 저장하거나 제출하지 않습니다. 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": {
      "com_cd_clsf_id": "<com_cd_clsf_id>"
    },
    "name": "fourinsure__b1__common__com_cd__list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`com_cd_clsf_id`	Yes	Code classification id, e.g. B112, D114, A101.
`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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description correctly reinforces this by disclosing that the call creates an XBOSS task and stores a result, so it is not purely read-only despite querying institution data. It further adds cost information (one token consumed per call), the login prerequisite, and full idempotency-key lifecycle semantics — well beyond the annotations. Minor deduction for the internal tension between '조회만 하며' and '순수 읽기 전용이 아닙니다', which the reader must reconcile themselves.

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 core purpose and prerequisite are clear, but the text is bloated with generic idempotency boilerplate (provider-specific key caveats, anonymous taste calls) that is tangential to a code-list lookup, and it mixes Korean and English mid-paragraph. Several sentences could be cut without losing anything an agent needs.

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 three-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the returned content (code value and name), per-call cost, and the internal task-record side effect — everything needed to invoke it correctly. The absence of an explicit statement about pagination or result ordering is the main residual gap.

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 still adds value by spelling out the idempotency key's operational meaning (generate and save before the first request, reuse only to recover a lost response, use a new key for a new execution, and that provider-specific idempotency_key is a distinct field) — semantics the schema defers to the description for.

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 names a specific resource and verb: retrieve common codes (code value + name) by classification id, with concrete examples (B112, D114, A101) and the concrete use site (reason/occupation fields of the 자격취득·상실 report). No sibling tool in the list performs code lookups, so it is distinguishable. It falls short of 5 only because the purpose statement is preceded by a prerequisite clause and followed by long idempotency boilerplate, diluting the front-loaded signal.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states an explicit prerequisite (a prior fourinsure__session__login call with the same account_link_id) and a concrete usage context (filling reason/occupation fields in the qualification acquisition/loss report). It also gives repeat-call guidance via the idempotency-key rules. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use conditions or an alternative tool.

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?