Compare Faktura VAT 2026 editions START vs STANDARD vs PRO: prices (PLN net, one-time purchase — no subscription) and a full feature availability matrix (KSeF 2.0, JPK, magazyn, KPiR, CRM, e-commerce integrations...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| editions | No | Editions to compare (default: all three) | |
| onlyDifferences | No | Return only features that differ between the selected editions |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the comparison includes prices (PLN net, one-time purchase) and a feature matrix, which gives insight into the content. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., table, JSON) or any edge cases. The description is honest and non-contradictory but lacks deeper behavioral detail.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action. It efficiently includes key details (specific editions, price type, and feature list) without unnecessary fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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's simplicity (2 optional params, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It covers the purpose, the editions compared, and the type of output (comparison matrix). It could be improved by giving an example of the response structure, but that is not essential for an initial selection.
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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (editions array and onlyDifferences boolean), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the specific editions and features but does not explain parameter usage beyond what the schema describes. It does not compensate for any gaps, as there are none.
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's function: comparing Faktura VAT 2026 editions. It specifies the exact editions (START, STANDARD, PRO) and what aspects are compared (prices and feature availability). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_product_info or get_ksef_info, which focus on single items rather than edition comparisons.
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 implicitly guides the user to use this tool when they need a side-by-side comparison of editions. It does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternative tools, but the context is clear given the tool's name and description. No exclusions are provided, which is acceptable for a straightforward comparison tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
