Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-krs

mcp-krs

by matematicsolutions
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_board

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the current board composition, representation rules, and proxies for a Polish company from the KRS register using its KRS number. It extracts board data from the official register.

Instructions

SKROCONA wersja: tylko sklad zarzadu + sposob reprezentacji + prokurenci. Szybciej niz get_entity gdy potrzebujesz tylko 'kto reprezentuje X'. Bazuje na odpisie aktualnym.

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": {
      "krs": "<krs>"
    },
    "name": "get_board"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
krsYesNumer KRS (1-10 cyfr).
rejestrNoRejestr: 'P' (default) lub 'S'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by stating it is based on a current extract and is faster. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose and key differentiator.

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?

Given the simple input schema and presence of annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool returns, its data source, and performance advantage. No output schema needed explanation.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 this tool returns board composition, representation method, and proxies. It distinguishes itself from get_entity by being faster and more focused, and the name 'get_board' aligns with the described scope.

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?

Explicitly says to use this when you need 'who represents X' and that it's faster than get_entity. However, it does not mention when not to use it or address the sibling get_entity_full, leaving some gaps.

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