XBOSS

부가세 분석 실행

vat__analysis__run

No credential or login required. 표준 부가세 준비 분석 파이프라인을 실행합니다. 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": {
      "case_id": "<case_id>",
      "expected_revision": "<expected_revision>"
    },
    "name": "vat__analysis__run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`case_id`	Yes
`analysis_scope`	No
`expected_revision`	Yes
`request_idempotency_key`	No	Optional same-request recovery key for authenticated calls; see the tool description.
`requested_submission_profile_ref`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: no login required, authenticated-call caveats, one token consumed per call, creation of an XBOSS job, storage of processing results, idempotency-key reuse rules, and an explicit warning that the call is not purely read-only. It loses a point because 'no credential or login required' sits awkwardly with 'authenticated call' and 'anonymous taste calls', and the final confirmation-procedure sentence is vague.

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 description contains useful operational details but mixes Korean and English, repeats the idempotency-key rule at length, and places the actual purpose after a login statement. The final data-change sentence and the phrase 'anonymous taste calls' are unclear and reduce efficiency.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a complex five-parameter pipeline with no output schema and only 20% schema-description coverage, the definition covers side effects, idempotency, and token cost but omits what case_id/expected_revision mean, what stage stopping controls, and what the call returns. It is minimally usable but not complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Only request_idempotency_key is explained, though it is explained thoroughly. The required case_id and expected_revision parameters, the analysis_scope.stop_after_stage enum/default V01-V12, and requested_submission_profile_ref receive no semantic explanation here. With schema description coverage at 20%, the description does not compensate for the missing parameter meaning.

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 and resource: it runs the standard VAT preparation analysis pipeline. That is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. It does not distinguish this run operation from the sibling vat__case__create or explain how the two relate, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus vat__case__create or other VAT-related tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The idempotency and token notes describe mechanics, not when this analysis run is the correct choice.

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?