Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

skanfirmy.pl

by io.github.bartosz-kuc
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

generuj_mikrorachunek

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate the individual tax micro-account (for PIT/CIT/VAT payments) from a NIP. The server does not accept PESEL (personal ID) — for a PESEL compute it locally: BBAN = "101000712221" + PESEL + "0", IBAN = "PL" + ISO 7064 mod-97 check digits + BBAN (or use skanfirmy.pl/mikrorachunek, which computes it in the browser).

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": {
      "identyfikator": "<identyfikator>"
    },
    "name": "generuj_mikrorachunek"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
identyfikatorYesNIP (10 digits). PESEL is not accepted by the server.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / identyfikator / description
      Previous value: -"NIP (10 digits) or PESEL (11 digits)."New value: +"NIP (10 digits). PESEL is not accepted by the server."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond them: the input-domain restriction (NIP only) and a full fallback derivation algorithm for PESEL, which an agent could not infer from structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The primary action is front-loaded in one sentence, with the PESEL caveat and fallback following. The embedded formula is dense but earns its place as actionable guidance; no filler sentences.

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 single-parameter, read-only derivation tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the input constraint and the workaround completely. It could optionally state the shape of the returned account number, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 single parameter is documented as a 10-digit NIP with PESEL explicitly excluded, so the schema carries the load. The description reinforces the NIP-only constraint but adds no format or validation detail beyond what the schema already says; baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource — generating an individual tax micro-account for PIT/CIT/VAT payments from a NIP — which is enough for an agent to distinguish this from siblings like sprawdz_rachunek or sprawdz_nip. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 clearly states a negative condition (PESEL is not accepted by the server) and supplies two concrete alternatives for that case: computing locally with the given BBAN/IBAN formula, or using skanfirmy.pl. That is real when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, though it does not route the agent among sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All skanfirmy.pl toolsInspect
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