SiteCheck Company Records

Polish business register current extract by KRS number

gov_krs_poland

Read-only

Polish business register (KRS) current extract by KRS number: company name, legal form, NIP tax number, registered seat and address, and register dates. Current extract only; a KRS number that is not registered returns 404. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "krs": "<krs>"
    },
    "name": "gov_krs_poland"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`krs`	Yes	KRS number, 10 digits, e.g. 0000500000

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`krs`	No
`nip`	No
`name`	No
`source`	No
`address`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`legalForm`	No
`registeredOn`	No
`lastEntryDate`	No
`registeredSeat`	No
`extractStateDate`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover read-only and open-world, but the description adds substantial operational context: a fixed price of $0.002 USDC per successful call, the x402 payment rail and accepted chains (Base, Solana, Arc), and the fact that failed calls are not charged. The 404 behavior for unknown KRS numbers is also disclosed, so the agent can predict both cost and failure modes.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then constraint/error, then cost. No filler or repetition of the title's wording beyond what is needed to anchor the resource.

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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema, everything an agent needs to decide and invoke is present: identity of the register, returned fields, the current-only constraint, behavior on missing records, and the metered payment model. Nothing material is left implicit.

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 coverage, and the schema already documents the 10-digit format and an example value. The description adds no further semantics about the KRS identifier, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('current extract by KRS number') plus the exact field set returned (name, legal form, NIP, seat/address, register dates). The country/register qualifier ('Polish business register (KRS)') cleanly separates it from the other national registry siblings such as gov_ares_czech or b2b_brreg_norway_companies.

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 a real usage boundary: 'Current extract only', and notes that an unregistered KRS returns 404, which tells the agent the call will fail rather than return partial data. It does not explicitly route to alternatives (e.g., historical extracts or other registers), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All SiteCheck Company Records tools Inspect

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

Need Help?