Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

skanfirmy.pl

by io.github.bartosz-kuc
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

sprawdz_nip

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check VAT status (VAT White List / Biała Lista) and KRS data for a Polish company by NIP. For entities without a KRS number (sole proprietors and civil partnerships, i.e. natural persons) personal data is limited (GDPR): the address is reduced to the town (the White List does not say whether it is a business or a home address), and bank accounts to their count — check a specific account with sprawdz_rachunek; no REGON number, registration date or PKD codes are returned for them (the ceidg field is always null). The privacy field lists what was hidden. White List data for entities with a KRS number may come from a same-day cache: then mfCached is true and bl.mfRequestDateTime is the time of the original Ministry query. If the full White List refuses the query (Ministry limit), the result may be status-only (source: status-only): bl is null and vatStatus has only the VAT status from the Ministry's API2, without name, address or bank accounts.

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": {
      "nip": "<nip>"
    },
    "name": "sprawdz_nip"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nipYes10-digit Polish NIP (tax ID).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, open-world read, and the description goes well beyond them: GDPR-driven data reduction for natural persons (town-only address, account count instead of numbers, null ceidg, no REGON/registration date/PKD), a privacy field listing what was hidden, same-day cache behavior signalled by mfCached with bl.mfRequestDateTime, and a documented fallback where bl is null and vatStatus comes from API2 alone. These are exactly the behavioral quirks an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries substantive information — no filler. It is a single dense paragraph covering several distinct cases (natural persons, cache, fallback), which would read better as separated segments, but the density is justified because no output schema exists to carry the field semantics.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains the two data sources, the GDPR-limited shape of results for non-KRS entities, the meaning of the privacy, ceidg and mfCached fields, and the degraded status-only response. An agent can interpret every likely response shape without additional documentation.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage stating it is a 10-digit Polish NIP. The description adds only 'by NIP', with no format, normalization or validation detail beyond the schema, so the schema does the work and baseline 3 applies.

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?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb (Check), the exact resources (VAT status via White List / Biała Lista and KRS data) and the key (Polish company by NIP). It also names the sibling sprawdz_rachunek as the tool for a specific bank account, so an agent can separate this tool from its nearest neighbor without opening any schema.

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?

Usage context is clear: use this for a company identified by NIP, and use sprawdz_rachunek when a specific bank account must be verified. It also describes when the result is degraded (Ministry limit → status-only). It does not explicitly say when to prefer sprawdz_lista_nip or sprawdz_regon instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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