Skip to main content
Glama

regdata_poland_kyb_check

Run a full Polish KYB check from a single NIP or KRS: one call returns company identity, beneficial owners, and insolvency screening with a clear verdict.

Instructions

Poland KYB Risk Check - one call, one verdict. Run a COMPLETE Polish KYB check from a single NIP or KRS - start here for Poland instead of chaining the individual registry tools. Resolves official company identity, pulls beneficial owners from the national UBO register, and screens the national debtor register for insolvency, restructuring and enforcement proceedings against the company AND every beneficial owner by exact identifier. Returns one normalized verdict - clear, findings, not_found or partial - plus machine-readable risk flags and the underlying registry entries (case signature, classification, court, dates, source). A "partial" verdict means a source could not be reached, not that the company is clean, and is not billed. Poland only; use the per-registry tools for other jurisdictions or for deeper single-source detail. TIMING: this check typically takes 20-30 seconds, but scales with the number of beneficial owners and has been measured up to ~2.5 minutes. If it has not finished in time, the tool returns {status, runId, note} instead of results - the check is running and already billed, so call regdata_run_result with that runId to collect it. Never re-run the check to 'retry': that bills twice. Advanced fields beyond this schema are also accepted (regdata_describe lists them).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
maxItemsNoOptional cap on billed dataset items returned.
identifiersYesThe Polish companies to check, by NIP (10 digits) or KRS (10 digits, leading zeros). Each identifier returns one complete KYB check: identity, beneficial owners, and insolvency proceedings against the company and every beneficial owner.
krzConcurrencyNoHow many beneficial owners to screen against the insolvency register in parallel. Higher is faster; lower is gentler on the registry. Leave at the default unless a check is timing out.
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: expected timing (20-30 seconds, up to 2.5 minutes), timeout behavior (returns status/runId/note), billing rules (partial verdict not billed, never retry), and that advanced fields are accepted. This level of transparency is critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description is comprehensive and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is relatively long. Each sentence adds value, though some redundancy could be trimmed (e.g., 'one call, one verdict' and 'COMPLETE' emphasis). A slightly tighter version would be more efficient, but it remains clear and well-organized.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (multiple registries, timeout handling, billing) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, behavior, return values (verdict types and timeout result), and error handling. It is complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema. For 'identifiers', it explains the format (NIP or KRS, 10 digits, leading zeros) and what each identifier returns. For 'maxItems' and 'krzConcurrency', it clarifies the purpose and default behavior. This helps the agent choose appropriate values.

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 tool performs a complete Polish KYB check using a single NIP or KRS, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle individual registries or other jurisdictions. It specifies the verb 'Run a COMPLETE Polish KYB check' and the resource 'from a single NIP or KRS', making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('start here for Poland instead of chaining the individual registry tools') and when not to ('use the per-registry tools for other jurisdictions or for deeper single-source detail'). It also warns about billing and timeout behavior ('Never re-run the check to retry: that bills twice'), which helps the agent avoid costly mistakes.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Nolpak14/getregdata'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server