XBOSS

지방세 환급 조회

wetax__tax__local__refund__query

조회만 합니다. 지방세 환급 가능 건수와 신청·지급 내역, 처리 상태를 조회하며 환급 신청은 수행하지 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 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": {
      "account_link_id": "<account_link_id>",
      "start_date": "<start_date>",
      "end_date": "<end_date>"
    },
    "name": "wetax__tax__local__refund__query"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page_no`	No	조회할 페이지 번호입니다. 첫 페이지는 1입니다.
`end_date`	Yes	환급 이력 조회 종료일입니다.
`start_date`	Yes	환급 이력 조회 시작일입니다.
`status_code`	No	처리 상태 코드입니다.
`province_code`	No	조회할 시도 코드입니다.
`account_link_id`	Yes
`refund_type_code`	No	환급 유형 코드입니다.
`municipality_code`	No	조회할 시군구 코드입니다.
`municipality_paid_only`	No	자치단체 지급건만 조회할지 여부입니다.
`request_idempotency_key`	No	Optional same-request recovery key for authenticated calls; see the tool description.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=false, the description discloses that each call consumes one token and that a request creates an XBOSS job and stores results, so the call is not a pure read even though it does not change institution data. This is exactly the context annotations cannot convey, though cost/rate-limit specifics beyond the one token are absent.

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 first sentence front-loads scope well, but the description is long and partly repetitive: the 'read-only' framing is asserted, then qualified, then re-qualified in the closing lines. The idempotency block is dense enough that an agent must parse it carefully.

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 10-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (count, application/payment records, statuses), that application is out of scope, and the mutation-adjacent side effects and token cost. Missing pieces are minor: no pagination guidance or indication of response shape beyond the field list.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is already 90%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds substantive semantics for request_idempotency_key (when to reuse vs. regenerate, behavior without it, that provider-side idempotency_key is a different field), which goes beyond the schema's one-line pointer.

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 opening states a specific verb and resource: it queries local tax refund eligibility counts plus application/payment history and processing status, and explicitly says it does not file a refund application. That negative clause partially separates it from application-type siblings, but no sibling tool (e.g. wetax__tax__local__payment__history__query) is named.

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 gives clear when-to-use context (status/history lookup, not application) and detailed when-to-reuse-the-idempotency-key rules, including new-key-per-new-execution. It lacks explicit routing to alternative sibling tools for related queries, which keeps it 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.

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?