get_krs_extractCurrent KRS (National Court Register) extract: name, legal form, address, share capital, board and representation, proxies, PKD codes, liquidation and bankruptcy flags. Reads a public registry and does not change it. Callable without an API key, within the daily per-IP limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| krs | Yes | KRS number, e.g. 0000028860 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it reads a public registry, does not change it, requires no API key, and is subject to a daily per-IP limit.
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 front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, then moves to safety and access constraints. It is compact and every clause adds useful information without repetition.
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?
With one required parameter, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It adds registry-safety and rate-limit context that an agent would otherwise lack, though it could still mention when to prefer this over find_company.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single krs parameter is already well documented in the schema with an example. The description does not add syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: a current KRS extract, and enumerates the data it returns (name, legal form, address, share capital, board, PKD codes, flags). It does not name or distinguish itself from potential siblings such as find_company, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Usage is implied: fetch a current KRS extract by KRS number. The description adds operational context (no API key, daily per-IP limit) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison to alternatives like find_company.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.