Skip to main content
Glama

전자세금계산서 수정

hometax__etax__invoice__modify
Destructive

REQUIRES prior hometax__session__login call with same account_link_id. Issue a correcting e-tax invoice (수정세금계산서) against an existing one. IRREVERSIBLE, same as issuing. This writes to the institution. The first call is not executed: it returns a preview of exactly what will be sent and a one-time confirmation_token (error WRITE_CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED). Show that preview to the user as it is. Only after the user agrees, call again with the same arguments plus that confirmation_token. Never add the token without the user's agreement. Changing any argument makes the token invalid; call without the token to get a new preview. You MUST ask the user which correction reason applies and pass etxiv_mdf_rsn_cd; never guess it. 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": {
      "supply_date": "<supply_date>",
      "old_aprv_no": "<old_aprv_no>",
      "etxiv_mdf_rsn_cd": "<etxiv_mdf_rsn_cd>"
    },
    "name": "hometax__etax__invoice__modify"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
old_aprv_noYesApproval number of the original invoice (원본 승인번호, 24 digits; hyphens allowed). Get it from hometax__etax__invoice__search_list.
supply_dateYesYYYYMMDD. 수정세금계산서 작성일(사유 04 일 때 이 날짜로 발행) - 그 밖의 사유는 원본 작성일로 발행하고, 이 값은 원본에 발행일이 없을 때 환율조회 기준일로만 쓴다
etxiv_knd_cdNoInvoice kind code. Ignored: the original invoice's kind code is sent ('01' when the original has none). 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.
etxiv_mdf_rsn_cdYes수정사유코드 - 사용자에게 물어서 받는다. 04 계약의 해제(당초분 전액 음수 1장(계약 해제일)) - 계약 전부가 해제됐을 때만 씁니다(일부 해지는 공급가액 변동). 계약 해제일이 속한 달의 다음 달 10일까지 발급해야 하며, 넘기면 지연발급 가산세 대상입니다. / 06 착오에 의한 이중발급(당초분 전액 음수 1장(당초 작성일)). This is recorded at 국세청 and cannot be undone.
confirmation_tokenNo첫 호출이 돌려준 1회용 확인 토큰입니다(오류 WRITE_CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED). 같은 인자에 이 값을 그대로 넣어 다시 호출하면 실행됩니다. 10분 뒤 만료되고 한 번만 쓸 수 있습니다.
etxiv_dmnr_clsf_cdNoBuyer class code. Ignored: the original invoice's buyer class code is sent ('01' when the original has none). Optional.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'IRREVERSIBLE, same as issuing' and 'writes to the institution'. It adds genuinely new behavior: the preview/confirmation_token handshake, 10-minute single-use expiry, token invalidation on argument change, and XBOSS job creation. The trailing Korean boilerplate is somewhat generic but does not contradict anything.

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?

Front-loaded with the REQUIRES prerequisite and the irreversible warning, then the confirmation flow in logical order. The closing Korean sentences about XBOSS job creation and read-only status are somewhat redundant padding that could be trimmed.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what the first call returns (a preview plus a one-time token) and the error code WRITE_CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED. Combined with the rich schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and safely.

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 insisting the agent ask the user for etxiv_mdf_rsn_cd and never guess it, and by explaining the token's lifecycle. It does not restate the per-field meanings, which the schema already covers well.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Issue a correcting e-tax invoice (수정세금계산서) against an existing one'), which cleanly separates it from the plain issue sibling. The scope (correction of an existing invoice) is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite (prior hometax__session__login with the same account_link_id) and the mandatory two-step flow: first call returns a preview, second call with confirmation_token executes. It also states the user must be asked which correction reason applies and that the token must never be added without agreement.

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