finwire.pl - Polish financial data

Yearly deadlines of a business in Poland

get_compliance_calendar

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calendar of tax, ZUS, VAT, payroll and reporting deadlines for a calendar year: monthly PIT/CIT advances or ryczałt, own ZUS, JPK_V7M, PIT and ZUS of employees, PPK, annual returns, annual health contribution, CIT-8, financial statements and JPK files. Dates are computed from statutory rules with the shift to the next working day; event-based duties (CRBR, ZUS registration, invoices) are listed as facts.

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": {
      "form": "<form>"
    },
    "name": "get_compliance_calendar"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`form`	Yes	Business form: sole proprietorship on tax scale, flat 19% or lump-sum ryczałt, or limited company.
`lang`	No	Language of texts, default en.
`year`	No	Calendar year, default the current one.
`employees`	No	Number of employees.
`vat_payer`	No	Active VAT payer (monthly JPK_V7M), default false.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`asOf`	No
`data`	No
`title`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`docsUrl`	Yes
`license`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`citation`	Yes
`datasetId`	Yes
`sourceUrl`	No
`truncated`	No
`serverDate`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / employees / description
```
Added value: +"Number of employees."
```

addedInput schema / properties / form / description

Added value: +"Business form: sole proprietorship on tax scale, flat 19% or lump-sum ryczałt, or limited company."

addedInput schema / properties / vat_payer / description

Added value: +"Active VAT payer (monthly JPK_V7M), default false."

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value by disclosing the computation method (statutory rules, deadline shifted to the next working day) and that event-based duties are returned as facts rather than computed dates — a meaningful distinction about output reliability. It does not mention coverage limits by year or any caveats about statutory changes.

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, both load-bearing: the first front-loads the deliverable and its contents, the second discloses the computation rule. The enumeration is long but every item adds distinguishing scope rather than filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the content set, the calculation rule, and the event-vs-computed distinction. It is nearly complete for a 5-parameter read-only lookup, with only minor omissions such as behavior for out-of-range years or whether the calendar is filtered by employees/vat_payer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains form, lang, year, employees and vat_payer in detail. The description reinforces semantics by tying the obligation set to the business form (advances vs. ryczałt, own ZUS, employee PIT/ZUS/PPK), hinting that the returned calendar varies with the form parameter. Baseline would be 3; the implicit link between form/employees/vat_payer and which deadlines appear earns a step up.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a concrete deliverable — a yearly calendar of tax, ZUS, VAT, payroll and reporting deadlines in Poland — and enumerates the obligation types it covers, so an agent knows exactly what resource it returns. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the nearby get_macro_calendar, which is the one sibling an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the enumerated deadline categories make the intended business-planning use case inferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_macro_calendar or get_legal_changes. The note that event-based duties are 'listed as facts' hints at scope boundaries but is not framed as guidance.

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

All finwire.pl - Polish financial data 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.