Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tezga-mcp

tezga-mcp

by GoSimple-agency
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Stanje dokumenta

tezga_stanje_dokumenta

Retrieves a Tezga document's fiscal status by ID, including PFR number, verification URL, and current state for receipt tracking.

Instructions

Vraća sve fiskalne podatke dokumenta (PFR broj, verifikacioni URL, status) po Tezga ID-ju.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "tezga_stanje_dokumenta"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTezga documentId

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload (fiscal fields, status) and 'Vraća' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about authorization requirements, error behavior for an unknown ID, or rate limits — meaningful gaps for a fiscal lookup tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single compact sentence with the verb and keyed parameter front-loaded and no filler. It could be marginally improved by adding a routing clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is returned, which is the main thing an agent needs for a simple getter. Missing only error/edge-case behavior for an unmatched ID, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as the Tezga documentId. The description's 'po Tezga ID-ju' merely restates the schema, adding no format, validation, or sourcing guidance beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb ('Vraća' / returns) and resource (fiscal data of a document) and enumerates the returned fields (PFR number, verification URL, status). It implicitly contrasts with the list-style sibling by keying on a single Tezga ID, though it never explicitly names an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The phrase 'po Tezga ID-ju' implies use when you already hold a document ID, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when to prefer tezga_lista_dokumenata or tezga_izdaj_racun instead.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools