Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
e-RUP KNF MCP Server

e-RUP KNF MCP Server

by Kymylyy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

get_entity_agents

Retrieve agents linked to a specific entity in the Polish KNF e-RUP payment institution registry using its entity ID.

Instructions

Get agents associated with an entity.

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": {
      "entity_id": "<entity_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_entity_agents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_idYesEntity ID
limitNo
offsetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Get agents' implies a read operation, but it does not clarify idempotency, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The minimal description offers little transparency beyond the name.

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 description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but under-specified. While it states the purpose, it fails to add value beyond the tool name. The sentence earns its place, but more detail is needed for a tool with three parameters.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has three parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not define 'agents', describe the result format, or note any important context (e.g., whether agents are users, bots, or something else). The presence of siblings further highlights the need for differentiation, which is absent.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is low (33%, only entity_id has a description), yet the description adds no parameter-specific information. It does not explain what 'entity_id' represents, how 'limit' and 'offset' control pagination, or any constraints on these parameters.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'agents' with context 'associated with an entity'. It distinguishes the tool from its siblings (e.g., get_entity_branches, get_entity_services) by focusing specifically on agents.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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