XBOSS

보수월액 변경 신청 입력 초안 검증

fourinsure__b1__payroll__amount_change__draft_validate

REQUIRES prior fourinsure__session__login call with same account_link_id. Validate payroll amount change draft without submission. 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

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "fourinsure__b1__payroll__amount_change__draft_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and the description genuinely adds context beyond them: each call consumes one token, creates an XBOSS job and persists the result, and is explicitly 'not purely read-only' despite validating without submission. It also spells out idempotency-key semantics (recovery-only reuse, new key for a new execution) and distinguishes the provider-level idempotency_key field. The only weakness is some vague machine-translated boilerplate about data changes following per-tool procedures.

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 is front-loaded, which is good, but the body is bloated: four sentences on one optional key with a confusing phrase ('anonymous taste calls'), plus vague Korean boilerplate that does not tell the agent anything actionable. It is adequately sized for the number of concepts but several sentences could be compressed into one.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema validation tool with annotations present, the definition covers authentication, cost, side effects, idempotency, and what the response reports (missing_required_fields and field_errors via the schema). Enough is present to call it correctly; only clearer sequencing relative to init/submit is missing.

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, and the description adds real meaning on top by explaining how request_idempotency_key should be generated and reused versus the distinct provider-level idempotency_key. account_link_id semantics are fully carried by the schema, so no gap remains.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Validate payroll amount change draft without submission', and explicitly scopes it to 'the form opened by fourinsure__b1__payroll__amount_change__init - not that tool's output', which separates it from the init sibling. The signal is clear but is buried under prerequisite and idempotency boilerplate rather than leading the description.

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?

Gives a hard prerequisite ('REQUIRES prior fourinsure__session__login call with same account_link_id') and implies ordering after amount_change__init, which is real guidance. However it never says when to prefer this over the submit-style siblings or what to do after validation succeeds, so the when-to-use decision is left implicit.

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?