Skip to main content
Glama

직원 자격취득 초안 저장

fourinsure__b1__member_qualification__acqs_save
Destructive

REQUIRES prior fourinsure__session__login call with same account_link_id. 자격취득 신고서를 정보연계센터에 초안으로 저장하고 접수번호를 받습니다. 기관에 실제로 남는 쓰기이고 이 API 로 되돌릴 수 없습니다. 신고서를 기관에 전송하지는 않으며, 마지막 전송은 사용자가 정보연계센터 화면에서 직접 합니다. confirm=true 없이 부르면 저장하지 않고 보낼 값을 미리 보여 주므로, 사용자에게 보여 주고 동의를 받은 뒤 confirm=true 로 다시 부르세요. rrkey 는 자격취득 가입자 조회 결과의 값을 넣습니다. 건강보험 취득부호와 직종 코드는 공통코드 목록 조회로 받습니다. 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": {
      "rrkey": "<rrkey>",
      "applicant_name": "<applicant_name>",
      "resident_registration_number": "<resident_registration_number>",
      "common_acquisition_date": "<common_acquisition_date>",
      "common_monthly_amount": "<common_monthly_amount>",
      "health_insurance": "<health_insurance>",
      "epi_occupation_code": "<epi_occupation_code>",
      "epi_occupation_name": "<epi_occupation_name>"
    },
    "name": "fourinsure__b1__member_qualification__acqs_save"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rrkeyYesMember rrkey from acqs_member_lookup.
confirmNoMust be true to save. Default false.
dry_runNoAssemble payload without posting save.
applicant_nameYesMember name in Korean.
account_link_idNo연동 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.
health_insuranceYesHealth insurance acquisition reason (both fields). Codes from com_cd.list.
epi_occupation_codeYesEmployment KECO occupation code.
epi_occupation_nameYesEmployment occupation name.
common_monthly_amountYesMonthly wage applied to all four insurances.
common_acquisition_dateYesHire/acquisition date YYYYMMDD.
resident_registration_numberYes13-digit resident registration number.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond destructiveHint=true it discloses that the write persists at the agency, cannot be undone via this API, costs one token per call, and spawns an XBOSS task whose result is stored. That is substantial context annotations cannot convey. It loses a point for the redundant closing boilerplate about following per-tool procedures and for saying nothing about failure modes after a receipt number is issued.

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?

The prerequisite and the irreversibility warning are front-loaded, which is the right ordering for a destructive tool. The tail is weaker: the token/XBOSS sentence and the "not a pure read" sentence overlap with the earlier "real write, irreversible" claim, and the final sentence about per-tool procedures is generic filler.

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 complex 11-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the prerequisite, the consent gate, the irreversibility, the receipt number return, and the cost. What is missing is what an agent should do if validation fails or a partial save occurs, which matters given the write cannot be rolled back.

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%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters including the nested health_insurance object, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the provenance of rrkey and the acquisition/occupation codes, but those sources are already echoed in the schema field descriptions, and the confirm semantics are explained more as workflow than as parameter meaning.

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 verb and resource — saving an acquisition report as a draft to the information-link center and receiving a receipt number — and explicitly contrasts it with final submission ("신고서를 기관에 전송하지는 않으며"). It does not name the validate/precheck siblings it likely supersedes, so the boundary against those remains inferred.

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 states the prerequisite (prior session login with the same account_link_id), the required two-step call pattern (preview without confirm=true, show the user, then re-call with confirm=true), and the upstream data sources (rrkey from the member lookup, codes from the common-code list). The when-to-use conditions and the sequencing are unambiguous.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources