XBOSS

전자세금계산서 수정

hometax__etax__invoice__modify

Destructive

REQUIRES prior hometax__session__login call with same account_link_id. Issue a correcting e-tax invoice (수정세금계산서) against an existing one. IRREVERSIBLE, same as issuing: call without confirm first to get a preview, show it to the user, then retry with confirm=true. You MUST ask the user which correction reason applies and pass etxiv_mdf_rsn_cd; never guess it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	No	Set true ONLY after showing the preview to the user and receiving their explicit approval.
`old_aprv_no`	Yes	Approval number of the original invoice (원본 승인번호, 24 digits; hyphens allowed). Get it from hometax__etax__invoice__search_list.
`supply_date`	Yes	YYYYMMDD. 수정세금계산서 작성일(사유 04 은 이 날짜로 발행) - 그 밖의 사유는 원본 작성일로 발행하고, 이 값은 원본에 발행일이 없을 때 환율조회 기준일로만 쓴다
`etxiv_knd_cd`	No	Invoice kind code (기본 '01'). 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).
`etxiv_mdf_rsn_cd`	Yes	수정사유코드 - 사용자에게 물어서 받는다. 04 계약의 해제(당초분 전액 음수 1장(계약 해제일)) - 계약 전부가 해제됐을 때만 씁니다(일부 해지는 공급가액 변동). 계약 해제일이 속한 달의 다음 달 10일까지 발급해야 하며, 넘기면 지연발급 가산세 대상입니다. / 06 착오에 의한 이중발급(당초분 전액 음수 1장(당초 작성일)). This is recorded at 국세청 and cannot be undone.
`etxiv_dmnr_clsf_cd`	No	Buyer class code (기본 '01'). Optional.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true bottles, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: the operation is IRREVERSIBLE, requires a preview-confirm flow, and the reason code is recorded at the National Tax Service and cannot be undone. It also warns about late-issuance penalties for reason 04. These go well beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the prerequisite, then purpose, then workflow, then a critical user-communication instruction. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant detail.

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 and irreversible operation with no output schema, the description covers all essential contexts: login prerequisite, preview-confirm safety flow, irreversibility, and the mandate to ask the user for the reason. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to execute safely.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents confirm's preview-approval requirement)Skip instruction, old_aprv_no's format/source, and reason codes' details. The description adds only marginal parameter meaning beyond the schema: it emphasizes the need to pass etxiv_mdf_rsn_cd (already in schema) and reinforces the confirm workflow. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Issue a correcting e-tax invoice'), the resource (an existing invoice via old_aprv_no), and the context (modification). It distinguishes itself from the ordinary hometax__etax__invoice__issue by saying 'against an existing one' and the title matches.

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?

The description gives a clear prerequisite (login with same account_link_id), a step-by-step workflow (preview first, show to user, then retry with confirm=true), and an explicit instruction to ask the user for the correction reason. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like invoice__issue, but the purpose and required parameters make the distinction clear.

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?