Weryfikacja polskich firm po NIP/KRS i unijnego VAT (VIES) z oficjalnych rejestrów UE.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.8/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: generating accounts, calculating interest, single vs batch NIP checks, bank account validation, VIES check, API catalog search, and PKD code lookup. Even the two NIP-checking tools are clearly differentiated by batch size and data scope.
All tools follow a consistent Polish verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., generuj_mikrorachunek, sprawdz_nip). No mixing of conventions or foreign language prefixes.
8 tools cover a focused domain of Polish business verification without being too few or too many. Each tool serves a clear need, and the count is appropriate for the server's purpose.
The toolset covers core due diligence operations (VAT status, bank account, VIES, PKD, interest). Minor gaps exist, such as no batch bank account check or full KRS retrieval, but the surface is largely complete for typical workflows.
generuj_mikrorachunekAInspectGeneruje indywidualny mikrorachunek podatkowy (do wpłat PIT/CIT/VAT) na podstawie NIP lub PESEL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identyfikator | Yes | NIP (10 cyfr) lub PESEL (11 cyfr). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool generates an account based on an identifier. It does not mention side effects (e.g., creation in a system), permissions required, idempotency, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a mutation-like tool without annotation support.
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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and input requirements. Every word is necessary; there is no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the critical action and output.
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?
For a tool with low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description omits what the tool returns (the micro-account number). Users may not know the output format. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this gap reduces completeness.
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?
The parameter 'identyfikator' is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage) as NIP or PESEL with format constraints. The description adds no further meaning beyond that, so it meets the baseline. No additional semantic enrichment is provided.
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 clearly states the verb 'Generuje' (generates), the resource 'indywidualny mikrorachunek podatkowy' (individual micro-tax account), and the scope 'do wpłat PIT/CIT/VAT' and 'na podstawie NIP lub PESEL'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which check or search for NIPs or accounts.
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?
The description implies the tool is used when a micro-tax account needs to be generated for tax payments. The context is clear, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The sibling tools provide broader context for when checks (sprawdz_nip, sprawdz_rachunek) might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
oblicz_odsetkiAInspectOblicza odsetki ustawowe lub za transakcje handlowe (B2B) za opóźnienie w płatności, z rozbiciem na okresy obowiązywania stawki NBP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| typ | Yes | kc = odsetki ustawowe za opóźnienie (KC art. 481, stopa ref. NBP + 5,5 p.p.); h10 = transakcje handlowe B2B, dłużnik niepubliczny (stopa ref. NBP na 1.01/1.07 + 10 p.p.); h8 = transakcje handlowe, dłużnik publiczny podmiot leczniczy (stopa ref. NBP na 1.01/1.07 + 8 p.p.). | |
| kwota | Yes | Kwota zaległości w PLN. | |
| dataDo | Yes | Data faktycznej zapłaty, format RRRR-MM-DD. | |
| dataOd | Yes | Termin płatności, format RRRR-MM-DD. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies state, or requires authentication. It only mentions calculation breakdown but not side effects or safety.
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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's core function without redundancy. It is front-loaded and concise.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description only hints at a breakdown by periods. It lacks explicit output format details or usage examples, which are needed for an agent to interpret results correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the tool's purpose without clarifying parameter nuances.
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 clearly states the verb 'calculates' and the resource 'interest' (odsetki), distinguishing between statutory and commercial transaction types. No sibling tool overlaps with this calculation task.
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?
The description implies the tool is for calculating late-payment interest under Polish law but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool, nor any alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sprawdz_lista_nipAInspectSprawdza zbiorczo listę do 30 NIP-ów w jednym zapytaniu do Wykazu VAT (Biała Lista) Ministerstwa Finansów — status VAT, rachunki bankowe, REGON, KRS i adres każdego podmiotu. Do weryfikacji portfela kontrahentów. Ograniczenie MF: max 30 NIP-ów na wywołanie, ok. 500 zapytań masowych/dzień na IP. Nie pobiera pełnych danych z KRS (do tego użyj sprawdz_nip dla pojedynczych).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nipy | Yes | Lista NIP-ów (od 1 do 30). Każdy 10-cyfrowy z poprawną sumą kontrolną. Niepoprawne NIP-y są zwracane osobno w polu invalidInput. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the tool queries the Ministry of Finance database, returns specific fields, imposes limit of 30 NIPs per call and daily rate limit, and describes handling of invalid NIPs via 'invalidInput' field. No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavioral aspects.
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?
Three sentences, each adding value: first defines purpose and output, second states usage and constraints, third clarifies scope. Front-loaded with core function, no wasted words.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains return data, invalid input handling, rate limits, and differentiates from siblings. No gaps for the intended task.
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?
The only parameter 'nipy' is fully described in the input schema with details on length, validation, and error handling. The tool description does not add additional information beyond what the schema provides, warranting a baseline score of 3.
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?
Description clearly states the tool checks a list of up to 30 NIPs against the Ministry of Finance's VAT White List, returning VAT status, bank accounts, REGON, KRS, and address. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'sprawdz_nip' by noting that for full KRS data, the single-NIP tool should be used.
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?
Explicitly mentions usage for portfolio verification, lists constraints (max 30 NIPs per call, ~500 daily bulk queries per IP), and advises when not to use it (for full KRS data, use 'sprawdz_nip'). Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sprawdz_nipAInspectSprawdza status VAT (Biała Lista Podatników VAT) i dane z KRS dla polskiej firmy po numerze NIP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nip | Yes | 10-cyfrowy polski NIP. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool checks VAT status and KRS data, but does not detail return format, whether it's read-only, or any side effects. Basic transparency but lacking depth.
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?
Single sentence, no waste, efficiently conveys the core functionality. Front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
Simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. Description covers input and purpose but omits what the output contains (e.g., status, company name). Adequate but could be more complete.
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?
Single parameter 'nip' with schema description '10-cyfrowy polski NIP.' Tool description adds no additional meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 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?
Description clearly states the tool checks VAT status (Biała Lista Podatników VAT) and KRS data for a Polish company using NIP. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings like sprawdz_vies (EU VAT) and sprawdz_rachunek (account check).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for Polish companies via NIP, but omits context like preferring this over sprawdz_vies for domestic queries or prerequisites. Usage is implied but not clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sprawdz_rachunekAInspectSprawdza, czy numer rachunku bankowego (NRB) figuruje w Wykazie VAT (Biała Lista) dla danego NIP — należyta staranność przy przelewach powyżej 15 000 zł.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nip | Yes | 10-cyfrowy NIP kontrahenta. | |
| numerRachunku | Yes | 26-cyfrowy numer rachunku bankowego (NRB), bez prefiksu PL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses the core action (checking against White List) but omits details like idempotency, error behavior, or any rate limits. Adequate for a simple read operation.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action, includes critical context without filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, description covers purpose and usage context. Lacks details on return value format, but overall sufficient for a simple check.
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 coverage is 100%, and description repeats the parameter meanings. Adds context about due diligence but does not enhance beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Clear verb ('sprawdza') and specific resource ('numer rachunku bankowego w Wykazie VAT'). Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on bank account validation for a given NIP, unlike 'sprawdz_nip' which checks NIP only.
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?
Explicitly mentions use case for due diligence on transfers above 15k PLN, implying when to use. Does not specify when not to use or provide alternative tools, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sprawdz_viesBInspectSprawdza ważność unijnego numeru VAT kontrahenta w systemie VIES (Komisja Europejska).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vatNumber | Yes | Numer VAT bez prefiksu kraju. | |
| countryCode | Yes | Dwuliterowy kod kraju UE (np. DE, IE, FR). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description lacks details on behavior like rate limits, error handling, or response format. Merely states it checks validity.
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?
Single sentence, to the point, no unnecessary words.
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?
Adequate for a simple lookup, but missing output description and any return value info; no output schema provided.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters; description adds no additional meaning beyond what schema provides.
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?
Description clearly states the tool checks EU VAT number validity via VIES, with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sprawdz_nip.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., sprawdz_nip for Polish NIP). Does not mention prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
szukaj_katalog_apiAInspectPrzeszukuje otwarteAPI.pl — katalog publicznych API Polski i Unii Europejskiej (VAT, KRS, GUS, NBP, EBC, Eurostat i inne). Zwraca pasujące wpisy z linkiem do oficjalnej dokumentacji każdego API. Puste zapytanie zwraca cały katalog (opcjonalnie zawężony przez zasieg/temat).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| temat | No | Zawęź do konkretnego tagu z katalogu, np. „firmy” lub „dane-statystyczne”. Opcjonalne. | |
| zasieg | No | Zawęź do API polskich (PL) lub unijnych (EU). Opcjonalne. | |
| zapytanie | No | Zapytanie w naturalnym języku, np. „kurs euro” lub „dane pogodowe”. Opcjonalne. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the behavior of empty queries returning the whole catalog (optionally filtered), which is helpful. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. For a search tool, the lack of explicit safety indication is a gap.
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 two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose. Every word adds value: it states the source, what it does, what it returns, and the empty query behavior. No redundant or wasted text.
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?
Given the tool has 3 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks details on the structure of returned entries beyond 'matching entries with a link.' This is moderate completeness for a search tool.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema (e.g., mentions narrowing by scope/topic but does not explain parameter format or constraints). It does not compensate for missing schema descriptions, but none are missing.
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 clearly states the tool searches the openAPI.pl catalog of public APIs for Poland and the EU, and returns matching entries with documentation links. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (tax/finance specific) by focusing on a broad API catalog.
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?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (searching for public APIs in Poland/EU) and notes that an empty query returns the full catalog. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling tool list implies differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
szukaj_pkdAInspectWyszukuje kody klasyfikacji PKD 2025 po nazwie działalności lub numerze kodu.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zapytanie | Yes | Nazwa działalności (np. „oprogramowanie”) lub kod PKD (np. „62.01”). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only mentions that the tool searches by name or code, without revealing any behavioral traits like case sensitivity, partial matching, result limits, or authentication requirements. This is minimal disclosure.
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 a single sentence that communicates the core functionality without any extraneous information. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with every word contributing meaning.
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?
For a simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could be improved by noting that the tool returns matching codes and their descriptions, but given the low complexity, it is adequate.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond repeating that the parameter can be a name or code. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already explains the parameter adequately.
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?
Description clearly states the tool searches for PKD 2025 classification codes by either business name or code number. The verb 'wyszukuje' (searches) and the specific resource 'kody klasyfikacji PKD 2025' make the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools which handle NIP, account, or VAT checks.
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?
The description implies the tool is for searching PKD codes when needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is inferred but not directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!