Skip to main content
Glama

부가가치세표준증명서 신청

hometax__certificate__apply__vat_standard
Destructive

REQUIRES prior hometax__session__login call with same account_link_id. Apply for VAT Standard Certificate. IRREVERSIBLE: this files an application with the NTS and a receipt record (cvaId + rcatNo) is created; there is no cancel action. Call without confirm first to get a preview, show it to the user, then retry with confirm=true. Never set confirm=true on your own. 호출마다 토큰 1소진

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endYmYes조회 종료 연월(YYYYMM) (서식이 요구하는 값)
strtYmYes조회 시작 연월(YYYYMM) (서식이 요구하는 값)
adrOpYnNo주소 표시 여부(Y/N) (서식의 선택 입력)
confirmNoSet true ONLY after showing the preview to the user and receiving their explicit approval. Omit it on the first call to obtain the preview.
resnoOpYnNo주민등록번호 표시 여부(Y/N, 법인은 N 고정) (서식의 선택 입력)
cerpIsnRqsQtyNo발급 매수 (서식의 선택 입력)
account_link_idNoAccount 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).
cvaDcumGranMthdCdNo교부방법 코드 (서식의 선택 입력)
cvaDcumSbmsOrgnClCdNo제출처 구분코드 (서식의 선택 입력)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / endYm
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "조회 종료 연월(YYYYMM) (서식이 요구하는 값)",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / strtYm
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "조회 시작 연월(YYYYMM) (서식이 요구하는 값)",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "endYm",
      +  "strtYm"
      +]
  2. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / adrOpYn / description
      Previous value: -"Show address on the certificate: 'Y' or 'N'"New value: +"주소 표시 여부(Y/N) (서식의 선택 입력)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / amtOpYn
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Show amount: 'Y' or 'N'",
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • changedInput schema / properties / cerpIsnRqsQty / description
      Previous value: -"Number of copies to issue (발급 매수)"New value: +"발급 매수 (서식의 선택 입력)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / cvaDcumGranMthdCd / description
      Previous value: -"Delivery method code (교부방법 코드)"New value: +"교부방법 코드 (서식의 선택 입력)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / cvaDcumSbmsOrgnClCd / description
      Previous value: -"Submission target code (제출처 구분코드)"New value: +"제출처 구분코드 (서식의 선택 입력)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / resnoOpYn / description
      Previous value: -"Show resident number: 'Y' or 'N' (forced 'N' for corporations)"New value: +"주민등록번호 표시 여부(Y/N, 법인은 N 고정) (서식의 선택 입력)"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the action is irreversible, that no cancel action exists, that a receipt record (cvaId + rcatNo) is created, and that each call consumes one token. These are exactly the traits an agent needs to avoid an accidental filing.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the blocking precondition, then purpose, then the irreversibility warning, then the confirm workflow and cost note. Every sentence carries distinct operational value with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, irreversible filing with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, the human-in-the-loop confirmation gate, and per-call cost. Nothing needed to invoke it safely is missing.

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 the schema already documents all nine parameters including the confirm gate; the description adds no parameter-level detail (date format, Y/N fields, issuance quantity) beyond what the schema states. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: applies for a VAT Standard Certificate and files the application with the NTS. The certificate type in the name/resource line already differentiates it from sibling apply tools (business_registration, tax_payment_record, etc.), but the description itself does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Explicit precondition (prior hometax__session__login with the same account_link_id) and an explicit two-step protocol: call without confirm for a preview, show the user, retry with confirm=true, never self-confirm. It does not compare against alternatives such as hometax__certificate__apply_auto, so it falls short of 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