Skip to main content
Glama

건강보험 고지 선택

nhis_edi__hr_payroll__premium_notices__select

REQUIRES prior nhis_edi__session__login call with same account_link_id. 탐색 결과의 행 키나 고지 연월, 문서 이름으로 고지내역서 하나를 골라 같은 연동 계정의 다음 조회가 쓰도록 남기고, 고른 문서 정보와 이어 부를 조회 목록을 받습니다. 고지 내용은 열지 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__hr_payroll__premium_notices__select"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
row_keyNoRow key returned by the list result; pass it back to select that row.
to_dateNoSearch range end date (YYYYMMDD).
from_dateNoSearch range start date (YYYYMMDD).
row_indexNoZero-based index of the row chosen from the list result.
goji_roundNoNotice round (고지회차).
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.
notice_year_monthNoNotice year-month (YYYYMM).
row_text_containsNoSelect the row whose full text contains this string.
cell_text_containsNoSelect the row whose cell text contains this string.
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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description consistently reinforces this with "이 호출은 순수 읽기 전용이 아닙니다" and disclosure of real side effects: one token consumed per call, an XBOSS job created and its result stored, and selection state persisted for subsequent calls. It also gives detailed idempotency-key semantics for safe retry. Deductions for the vague closing line about provider data changes following per-tool procedures, which conveys little.

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 mixes Korean and English and packs several long boilerplate blocks (idempotency policy, token/job bookkeeping, a generic compliance disclaimer) that read as copy-pasted across tools. The sentence about keeping a provider-specific idempotency_key unchanged is noise here because no such field exists in this schema. Content is relevant but not tightly edited.

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 10-parameter stateful tool with no output schema and only partial annotation coverage, the description covers auth prerequisites, the persistence side effect, cost, and a brief statement of what is returned (selected document info and the follow-up lookup list). An agent could call it correctly from this. Minor gaps remain around how the various selection parameters interact when more than one is supplied.

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, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: it explains that selection can be driven by a row key, notice year-month, or document name, and that the same account_link_id must be used as in the login call. The multi-sentence explanation of request_idempotency_key (when to reuse vs. generate a new one) is substantive guidance not captured by the schema's one-line description.

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 action (selecting one premium notice row from search results) and its outcome (the selection is persisted so the next lookup in the same account reuses it, returning the selected document info plus the follow-up list). The clause "고지 내용은 열지 않습니다" clearly separates it from a detail/inspection tool. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (premium_notices__search, premium_notices__detail) explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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" plus "탐색 결과의 행 키..." establishes the prerequisite and the natural workflow position (after a search/list). The negative guidance that notice content is not opened implies when to switch to a detail tool. There is no explicit named alternative or exclusion list, which keeps it below a 5.

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