Search Poland's KRS company registry by company name to retrieve KRS numbers, city, register, and flags for company verification.
Search the Poland company registry (KRS) by company name: name, KRS number, city, register and flags. 1 point per returned record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes | Company name. e.g. orlen | |
| max_items | No | Max items (up to 100) | |
| start_page | No | Starting page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuinely useful non-schema context — the '1 point per returned record' cost signal — but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or how paging behaves in practice beyond the schema fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the registry and lookup key, followed by the return/cost note. Nothing is wasted, though the appended field list is slightly ambiguous about whether those are searchable or returned fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so enumerating the returned fields (name, KRS number, city, register, flags) is a real contribution, and the per-record cost is disclosed. The main remaining gap is pagination/result-size behavior, which is only hinted at by max_items and start_page in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the three parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description's phrase 'by company name' reinforces the keyword parameter, but the field list (name, KRS number, city, register, flags) reads as returned fields rather than parameter semantics, adding little on that axis.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource — searching the Poland company registry (KRS) by company name — which is clear enough for an agent to act on. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from close siblings such as run_pl_companies or run_pl_company_filings, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: 'Search ... by company name' tells the agent this is the name-keyword lookup entry point, but it never says when to prefer it over run_pl_companies (likely an ID/detail lookup) or run_pl_company_filings. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.