finwire.pl - Polish financial data

EV charging points in Poland (UDT EIPA)

get_ev_charging

Read-onlyIdempotent

Public EV charging in Poland from the UDT register EIPA: locations, stations and charging points today and at each month end since December 2019, growth year on year, charging sites and fast sites (at least 50 kW) by province and county, sites per 10k residents, sites by maximum power class (EU AFIR: up to 22 kW, 23-49, 50-149, 150-349, 350+ kW) and connector (CCS, Type 2, CHAdeMO), counties with the most ultra-fast sites (150 kW and more), networks with the most fast sites, the finwire index finwire_ev_charging_coverage (charging points per 1000 BEV and PHEV cars in the fleet), growth records and the finwire index finwire_ev_infrastructure_growth (charging points year on year), and daily growth by power class and network since the start of measurement. Interactive map with every site: finwire.pl/mapa-ladowarek.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_ev_charging"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`history`	No	Number of past month ends in the summary, default 12.

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.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that — the dataset is current 'today' plus month-end snapshots back to December 2019, and it names the two included finwire indices — but it says nothing about refresh cadence, how 'today' is derived, or how the history window affects the response, which matters for a time-series tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The resource is front-loaded correctly in the opening clause, but the body is one very long comma-spliced sentence enumerating dozens of data categories, which is hard to scan. Most clauses carry real information about data coverage, yet there is redundancy (the two finwire indices are named alongside restatements of what they measure) and no grouping into structure.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description compensates by enumerating the analytical dimensions available, which is the key selection signal. The only meaningful gap is response size/shape expectations for a tool that returns province-, county-, power-class- and network-level breakdowns simultaneously.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `history` parameter (0–84 past month ends, default 12) is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's phrase 'at each month end since December 2019' gestures at the history window but adds no format, default, or sizing guidance beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource and scope: aggregate public EV charging statistics for Poland from the UDT EIPA register, enumerated by dimension (locations, growth, province/county breakdowns, power classes, connectors, indices). An agent can tell this is an aggregate-statistics tool rather than a per-site lookup, though no verb is used and no sibling (e.g. find_ev_chargers, get_ev_charging_prices, get_electric_vehicles) is named to make the boundary explicit.

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 closing pointer to an interactive map with every site (finwire.pl/mapa-ladowarek) hints that this tool is for statistics rather than individual charger lookups, but the description never states when to use it versus find_ev_chargers or get_ev_charging_prices. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit alternative-tool routing.

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.