XBOSS

파일신고 초기화

nhis_edi__file_report__init

REQUIRES prior nhis_edi__session__login call with same account_link_id. 로그인한 연동 계정으로 파일신고에 쓸 수 있는 서식 다섯 가지와 기본 서식, 올릴 수 있는 파일 형식, 신고 자료 표의 열을 받습니다. 파일을 올리거나 검증하거나 신고하지는 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

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": "nhis_edi__file_report__init"
  }
}

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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, and the description substantiates that with concrete consequences: 호출마다 토큰 1소진, XBOSS 작업 생성 및 처리 결과 저장, and "순수 읽기 전용이 아닙니다". That is meaningful context beyond the annotations. It loses a point for confusing boilerplate ("anonymous taste calls", "provider-specific idempotency_key") that does not map to any parameter in this schema.

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 essential facts are front-loaded (prerequisite, what is returned, what is not done), but the text then mixes generic idempotency boilerplate and internal implementation terms (XBOSS, provider-specific key) that add bulk without helping selection. Bilingual switching makes it slower to parse than it needs to be.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so specifically (forms, default form, allowed file formats, table columns). Combined with the prerequisite, the negative scope, the token cost, and the not-read-only disclosure, an agent has what it needs to invoke this correctly; only the follow-up tool is left implicit.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds semantics for request_idempotency_key: generate and save it before the first authenticated request, reuse only to recover a lost response, use a new key for a new execution. That is behavioral meaning the schema does not convey.

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 the specific resource set it returns: 다섯 가지 서식, 기본 서식, 올릴 수 있는 파일 형식, 신고 자료 표의 열. That is a concrete verb+resource pair an agent can act on. It does not distinguish itself from any named sibling, but there are no close file-report siblings in the catalog, so the gap is minor.

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?

"REQUIRES prior nhis_edi__session__login call with same account_link_id" states an explicit prerequisite, and the line "파일을 올리거나 검증하거나 신고하지는 않습니다" explicitly excludes the upload/validate/report actions an agent might otherwise expect from a file-report tool. Missing is a pointer to which tool to call next with the returned forms and columns.

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?