XBOSS

홈택스 원천세 정기신고 제출

hometax__tax__withholding__regular_report__submit

Destructive

REQUIRES prior hometax__session__login call with same account_link_id. Submit a regular-withholding draft. 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. 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": {
      "draft_id": "<draft_id>",
      "expected_state_version": "<expected_state_version>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>",
      "confirmSubmit": "<confirmSubmit>",
      "sbmsAgreement": "<sbmsAgreement>"
    },
    "name": "hometax__tax__withholding__regular_report__submit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`draft_id`	Yes	Draft ID returned by init
`confirmSubmit`	Yes	Required user confirmation gate.
`sbmsAgreement`	Yes	Required submission agreement gate.
`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.
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Idempotency key for safe retry
`submissionOptions`	No	Not read. Send confirmSubmit and sbmsAgreement at the top level; values nested here do not confirm a submission.
`confirmation_token`	No	첫 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.
`expected_state_version`	Yes	Expected draft state version

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the two-phase confirmation gate, the one-time token lifecycle, that XBOSS jobs are created and results persisted per call, and explicitly that the call is not purely read-only even when the institution record is only queried. It also forbids adding the token without user agreement, which is behavioral guidance found nowhere in the schema.

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 write flow are front-loaded in short imperative sentences, which is the right ordering for an agent. The trailing Korean passage partly repeats what the English already said (write/non-read-only) and inflates length without adding new operational instruction.

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 an 8-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, the confirmation loop, token expiry/invalidation, and idempotency context via the schema. It stops short of saying what a successful submission returns (e.g., receipt identifiers or where results land in XBOSS), which is the only meaningful 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 schema sets a baseline of 3, but the description adds meaning: confirmation_token must be paired with the *same* arguments, any argument change voids it, and account_link_id must match the one used at login. These are constraints on parameter interaction rather than restatements of field descriptions.

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?

"Submit a regular-withholding draft. This writes to the institution." gives a specific verb (submit), resource (regular-withholding draft), and effect (institutional write). The "regular" qualifier implicitly separates it from the amendment/late/delete siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

States an explicit prerequisite (prior hometax__session__login with the same account_link_id) and a full when-to-call/how-to-call protocol: first call returns a preview plus one-time token, second call with identical args plus token executes. It also covers the negative path — changing any argument invalidates the token and requires a fresh preview call — leaving little to inference.

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?