Skip to main content
Glama

skanfirmy.pl

by io.github.bartosz-kuc

set_webhook

Set (or clear) a push webhook URL for your monitoring, instead of or in addition to polling. When we detect a change for a monitored NIP, we send a POST signed with HMAC-SHA256 (X-Skanfirmy-Signature header). Returns the secret ONCE. Pass an empty url to disable. Requires a skanfirmy API key. Public https addresses only (port 443).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoPublic https URL of the receiver (empty = disable the webhook).
api_keyNoskanfirmy API key (optional, if not in the header).

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the POST mechanism, HMAC-SHA256 signing header, one-time secret return, authentication requirement, URL constraints, and the disable path. These are non-obvious behavioral details an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, delivery mode, signing, one-time secret, clearing semantics, auth, and URL constraint are each stated in short, front-loaded sentences. The description is dense without being padded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a non-schema-bearing tool with no output schema, the description covers all decision-critical aspects: when to set, when to clear, required auth, transport constraints, and the critical one-time secret return. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly echoes schema descriptions for url and api_key ('empty url to disable', 'requires API key'), adding no new per-parameter semantics beyond the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('webhook URL'), immediately clarifies the two modes (set/clear), and orients the tool toward push monitoring rather than polling. The phrasing 'for your monitoring, instead of or in addition to polling' distinguishes this tool from passive query-style siblings like sprawdz_nip or observe_nip.

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?

Gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate ('instead of or in addition to polling') and when to disable via empty url, but does not name specific sibling tools or provide exclusions such as 'use observe_nip for one-off checks'. The guidance is strong for intended use, but not exhaustive about alternatives.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes: checking a single NIP, bulk-checking NIPs, checking a bank account, validating VIES, and searching registers are clearly separated. Some minor overlap exists between sprawdz_nip and sprawdz_lista_nip, and between changes_since and list_observations, but the descriptions clarify the individual vs. bulk and change-history vs. current-state distinctions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes English verbs (observe_nip, list_observations, set_webhook) with Polish verbs (generuj_mikrorachunek, oblicz_odsetki, sprawdz_nip, szukaj_pkd), making the convention feel inconsistent. Additionally, changes_since is a noun phrase rather than a verb-based action, breaking the overall verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools is well within a reasonable range for a business-information and monitoring server. Each tool corresponds to a distinct operation, and the number feels appropriate for the scope of checking Polish business registers, VAT validation, interest calculation, and NIP monitoring.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core domain well: single and bulk VAT checks, bank account verification, REGON and VIES lookups, PKD search, micro-account generation, interest calculation, and a full monitoring lifecycle (observe, list, changes, webhook, unobserve). Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated webhook-status listing and limited detailed KRS fetching, but agents can accomplish expected workflows.

Resources