XBOSS

직원 자격상실 기존 신고 확인

fourinsure__b1__member_qualification__los_exist_check

Read-only

REQUIRES prior fourinsure__session__login call with same account_link_id. 자격상실 신고서를 쓰기 전에 보험 하나(국민연금·건강보험·고용보험·산재보험)에 기존 상실신고가 있는지 확인합니다. rrkey 는 자격상실 가입자 조회 결과의 값을 넣습니다. 확인만 하며 기관에 저장하거나 제출하지 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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`flag`	Yes	Insurance flag: YG/GG/GY/SJ or national_pension/health_insurance/employment_insurance/workers_compensation.
`bpmno`	No	Workplace management number. Optional.
`rrkey`	Yes	Member rrkey from los_member_lookup.
`check_type`	No	Upstream type. Default 2.
`workplace_name`	No	Workplace name. Optional.
`account_link_id`	No	Account link ID (UUID v4). Optional — the server auto-resolves from your API key when omitted. Provide explicitly only when you have multiple certificates for the same provider. Each institution has a separate ID (Hometax != NHIS != NPS != FourInsure).
`applicant_rrkey`	No	Applicant rrkey from the loss form. Optional.
`declaration_apply_date`	No	Declaration date from the loss form. Optional.
`request_idempotency_key`	No	Optional same-request recovery key for authenticated calls; see the tool description.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / request_idempotency_key

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional same-request recovery key for authenticated calls; see the tool description.",
+  "maxLength": 128,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "pattern": "^[\\x20-\\x7E]+$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, and the description stays consistent while adding real context: nothing is saved or submitted to the institutions, each call consumes 1 token, and a session/certificate binding is required. The idempotency-key paragraph is boilerplate that adds little for a pure read, but the cost and no-write guarantees are genuinely useful.

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 correctly front-loaded and the core check is one sentence, but the block mixes Korean and English and spends several sentences on request_idempotency_key guidance that is largely irrelevant to a read-only existence check, diluting the signal.

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 9-parameter read-only pre-check with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers prerequisite, cost, and the no-side-effect guarantee. The main gap is not telling the agent what the check's verdict means for the next step (proceed to los_save vs. skip).

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%, so flag encodings, rrkey provenance, and account_link_id resolution are already documented. The description only restates that rrkey comes from the loss-member lookup result, adding no syntax or mapping detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 Korean sentence states a specific verb and resource: check whether a prior qualification-loss declaration already exists for one of four insurance types (national pension, health, employment, industrial accident), and frames it as a step taken before writing the loss form. This clearly separates it from the writing sibling los_save, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use (before composing the 자격상실 신고서) and a hard prerequisite (prior fourinsure__session__login with the same account_link_id). It implies rrkey originates from the loss member lookup but does not name los_member_lookup/los_save or state how to branch on the 'exists / does not exist' outcome.

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?