ksef-mcp

ksef_auth_status

Read-only

Check KSeF session status: active, token details, and validity to avoid authentication failures in e-invoice workflows.

Instructions

Sprawdź status aktywnej sesji KSeF — czy jest aktywna, tokeny, ważność.

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": "ksef_auth_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation. The description adds a bit of behavioral context by listing what the status check covers (activity, tokens, validity), but it does not describe return structure, error cases, or what happens when no session is active. This is acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the tool's purpose and the key check dimensions with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a parameterless status-check tool.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description provides enough context: it names the resource and the main output dimensions (active, tokens, validity). Since there is no output schema, slightly more detail about the returned shape would improve completeness, but the current level is sufficient for basic invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document beyond confirming no inputs are required. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Sprawdź') and resource ('status aktywnej sesji KSeF'), and it clarifies what aspects are checked: activity, tokens, and validity. This clearly distinguishes the tool from auth lifecycle siblings like ksef_auth_init and ksef_auth_terminate.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description makes the context clear: use this to check the status of the active KSeF session. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the single clear purpose provides adequate guidance.

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