Skip to main content
Glama

4대보험 보험료 조회

si4n__premium__inquiry

REQUIRES prior si4n__session__login call with same account_link_id. 조회만 합니다. 사업장이 내야 할 보험료와 아직 내지 않은 금액을 돌려줍니다. view 를 by_insurance 로 두고 insurance_type 을 넣으면 그 보험 하나의 고지 내역을, regular_batch 나 batch 로 두면 기관이 보여 주는 보험들의 고지 내역을 한 표로 돌려줍니다. 요약과 체납 내역은 언제나 네 보험을 모두 보여 줍니다. 납부는 하지 않습니다. Files: a document generated from this result, as Excel (xlsx) only when requested in output_formats, listed in artifacts[] of the result with a download_url that works for 15 minutes; each file is kept for 7 days. If a link has expired, call xdata__job__result with the job_id from the result for fresh links. For an anonymous result, keep its private recovery_receipt and send it with the original job_id or pack_run_id to xdata__job__result. It grants access to that result only, until the original file retention expires. Do not publish it. Losing it cannot be repaired by signing up. The receipt also works if the client later signs in; it does not grant access to other results. Without a receipt, results require the original account and lane. 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

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": {
      "view": "<view>"
    },
    "name": "si4n__premium__inquiry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewYesby_insurance lists the notice rows of one insurance and needs insurance_type; regular_batch and batch list the notice rows of whichever insurances the institution shows, in one table, and take no insurance_type.
insurance_typeNoRequired when view is by_insurance (the one insurance whose notice rows are listed); leave it out for regular_batch and batch.
output_formatsNo선택 입력입니다. 결과를 엑셀(xlsx) 파일로도 받으려면 입력해 주세요. 파일은 결과의 artifacts[] 에 실립니다. 비워 두면 데이터만 받습니다.
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.
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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: one token is consumed per call, an XBOSS job is created and its result stored, and the call is therefore not purely read-only even though the institution's source data is untouched. It also discloses file behavior (xlsx only when requested, download_url valid 15 minutes, files retained 7 days) and how to refresh expired links via xdata__job__result. The initial "조회만 합니다" sits awkwardly against "순수 읽기 전용이 아닙니다", though the description resolves the tension itself, so this is not an annotation contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The prerequisite and purpose are front-loaded, but the body is bloated with platform boilerplate that is irrelevant to this tool: anonymous recovery_receipt handling, warnings that the receipt cannot be repaired by signing up, and the note that the idempotency key is unavailable to "anonymous taste calls" — despite this tool requiring login. These passages crowd out the tool-specific behavior the agent actually needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden, and it does describe the result shape: notice rows in one table per view, summary and arrears always spanning all four insurances, and artifacts[] entries for generated xlsx files. Given five parameters and moderate complexity, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the individual field names inside the returned rows remain unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and every parameter (view, insurance_type, output_formats, account_link_id, request_idempotency_key) is documented in the schema with enum semantics. The description largely restates the view/insurance_type pairing and adds only a small amount of new meaning, such as the note that summary and arrears always cover all four insurances. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: it returns the premiums a workplace owes plus the unpaid amounts, and it explicitly excludes payment ("납부는 하지 않습니다"). It also enumerates what each view returns, so the agent can distinguish the three modes. It does not, however, distinguish this inquiry from the similarly named premium_calculation sibling.

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?

It states a hard prerequisite (prior si4n__session__login with the same account_link_id) and gives the condition for choosing each view: by_insurance when you want one insurance's notice rows, regular_batch/batch when you want the institution's combined table. It also warns that payments are not handled here. It names no alternative tool for the excluded cases, so the routing is only partial.

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