Skip to main content
Glama

직원 자격상실 기존 신고 확인

fourinsure__b1__member_qualification__los_exist_check

REQUIRES prior fourinsure__session__login call with same account_link_id. 자격상실 신고서를 쓰기 전에 보험 하나(국민연금·건강보험·고용보험·산재보험)에 기존 상실신고가 있는지 확인합니다. rrkey 는 자격상실 가입자 조회 결과의 값을 넣습니다. 확인만 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": {
      "rrkey": "<rrkey>",
      "flag": "<flag>"
    },
    "name": "fourinsure__b1__member_qualification__los_exist_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flagYesInsurance flag: YG/GG/GY/SJ or national_pension/health_insurance/employment_insurance/workers_compensation.
bpmnoNoWorkplace management number. Optional.
rrkeyYesMember rrkey from los_member_lookup.
check_typeNoUpstream type. Default 2.
workplace_nameNoWorkplace name. Optional.
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.
applicant_rrkeyNoApplicant rrkey from the loss form. Optional.
declaration_apply_dateNoDeclaration date from the loss form. Optional.
request_idempotency_keyNoOptional same-request recovery key for authenticated calls; see the tool description.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the token cost per call, that an XBOSS task is created and its result stored, and that the agency-side data is untouched while the call is still not purely read-only. The idempotency paragraph explains retry/recovery semantics and warns that request_idempotency_key is distinct from provider-specific idempotency_key. The only gap is that it never says what an existing-vs-not result looks like.

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 purpose and prerequisite are front-loaded, which is good, but the text is bloated by a long template-style idempotency paragraph and a redundant closing sentence about the call not being purely read-only. Language switches between English and Korean mid-paragraph, adding reading friction for an agent parsing the constraints.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, cost, and idempotency well, but it never explains the observable outcome — whether the response reports an existing report per insurance, and how to interpret flag values across the four insurances. That is the one thing an agent calling a 'check' tool most needs.

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 pinning rrkey to the loss-member lookup result and by explaining the lifecycle of request_idempotency_key (generate before first request, reuse only to recover, new key for new execution). It adds nothing for flag, bpmno, or check_type beyond the schema.

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: check whether an existing 자격상실 (loss) report exists for one of the four insurances before writing the declaration form. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from los_member_lookup by specifying that rrkey comes from that lookup's result. It stops short of naming the sibling it complements (los_draft_validate / los_save), so it is clear but not fully sibling-routed.

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 the ordering constraint explicitly (call before writing the loss declaration) and the hard prerequisite (prior session login with the same account_link_id). It also clarifies the tool only checks and does not submit. It does not name which sibling to call next after the check, so there is no positive alternative routing.

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