Poland Invoices (KSeF 2.0 national e-invoice API)
Server Details
Poland KSeF 2.0 national e-invoices for AI agents: issue FA(3) faktura, query by KSeF number.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.7/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one creates invoices, the other queries by KSeF number. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_invoice, query_invoice), perfectly predictable and readable.
With only 2 tools, the set feels thin for a government e-invoicing API, though it covers the essential create and query operations. A few more tools (e.g., list, cancel) would be more appropriate.
Missing critical operations like listing invoices, updating, or canceling. The inability to retrieve invoices without knowing the KSeF number is a significant gap.
Available Tools
2 toolscreate_invoiceAInspect
Issue a Poland structured e-invoice (faktura ustrukturyzowana, schema FA(3)) through KSeF 2.0 — Krajowy System e-Faktur, the national government e-invoice API. Bring your own credentials via headers: x-ksef-token (a KSeF authorization token you self-mint in the Ministry of Finance taxpayer portal at ksef.podatki.gov.pl) and x-ksef-nip (your 10-digit seller NIP). Runs against the MoF TEST environment by default (no fiscal effect); set header x-ksef-mode: production to submit real invoices to KSeF (or demo for the demo environment). The server opens an encrypted online session, submits the FA(3) invoice, closes the session, and returns the assigned KSeF number. Amounts are in PLN; each line item carries a NET unit price and a Polish VAT rate (23, 8, 5, or 0) — the server computes per-rate net/VAT and the invoice gross total.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | Line items. Each: name, quantity, net_price (PLN, per unit, NET/excl. VAT), vat_rate (23, 8, 5, or 0). | |
| currency | No | ISO currency code. Default PLN. | |
| buyer_nip | Yes | Buyer 10-digit Polish NIP (B2B). Validated with the official NIP checksum. | |
| buyer_name | Yes | Buyer legal name (nazwa). | |
| issue_date | No | Issue date (data wystawienia) YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today (UTC). | |
| seller_name | Yes | Seller legal name (your company). The seller NIP comes from the x-ksef-nip header. | |
| buyer_address | No | Optional buyer address line (defaults to "Polska"). | |
| invoice_number | Yes | Your invoice number (numer faktury), e.g. FV/2026/07/001. | |
| seller_address | No | Optional seller address line (defaults to "Polska"). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses behavioral details beyond annotations: it opens an encrypted session, submits the invoice, closes the session, and returns a KSeF number. It also clarifies that the test environment has no fiscal effect. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.) are supplemented well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise, starting with core purpose, then authentication, environment, and processing details. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers all aspects: authentication, environment selection, invoice components, processing flow, and return value. Despite no output schema, it states the returned KSeF number. Given the tool's complexity, the description is thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining purpose in context (e.g., NIP validation, amounts in PLN, VAT rate enum meaning, defaults for optional fields). It clarifies that seller_nip comes from header and that server computes net/VAT totals.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it issues a Poland structured e-invoice (faktura ustrukturyzowana) through KSeF 2.0, distinguishing it from the sibling tool query_invoice which is for querying. The verb 'issue' and specific resource 'Poland e-invoice' are precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use this tool (to issue a Poland e-invoice), how to authenticate via headers, and the environment modes (test/production/demo). It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling tool name provides a contrast.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
query_invoiceARead-onlyInspect
Fetch a Poland KSeF invoice by its KSeF number (the numer KSeF assigned by the government system, returned by create_invoice). Status values: ACCEPTED (the invoice exists in the national KSeF repository under your NIP — its presence is the fiscal proof). Authenticates with your KSeF token; safe to call anytime.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ksef_number | Yes | The KSeF number (numer KSeF) returned by create_invoice. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by explaining authentication via KSeF token, status values, and the fiscal proof meaning. No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and packs in parameter guidance, status explanation, and safety advice.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, input source, status meaning, authentication, and safety. It is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining the KSeF number's source ('returned by create_invoice') and its role, which goes beyond the schema description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'Poland KSeF invoice', clearly identifies the input (KSeF number), and distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'create_invoice' by implying this is for querying existing invoices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states it is 'safe to call anytime' and mentions authentication, giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the single sibling tool makes the distinction implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!