Skip to main content
Glama
pkolawa

KRS Poland MCP Server

by pkolawa
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

50%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.3.1

  • Disambiguation2/5

    Both tools retrieve KRS records, and their names ('Current' vs 'Full') are unclear in differentiation. Descriptions do not explain what additional data 'Full' provides, leading to potential confusion for an agent.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Both tools use 'Get_' prefix with PascalCase, which is consistent. However, the second word ('Current' vs 'Full') is somewhat arbitrary and not part of a clear pattern (e.g., Get_Current vs Get_Full).

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server is very narrowly scoped. This can be appropriate if the sole purpose is retrieving two variants of a record, but it feels thin for a typical MCP server.

    Completeness2/5

    Only retrieval operations are provided, lacking search, creation, or updates. If the domain requires any interaction beyond fetching records, the tool surface is severely incomplete.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or data freshness. The lack of detail makes it hard to anticipate tool behavior.

    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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) and does not elaborate on key aspects. It could be improved without adding excessive length.

    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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what 'full status' includes, but it does not. This is insufficient for a tool likely returning complex data, leaving the agent underinformed.

    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?

    With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter meanings (krs pattern, rejestr enum) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

    Purpose3/5

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

    The description 'Get full status of the entity in KRS' indicates the tool retrieves status information, but 'full status' is vague. It distinguishes from 'Get_Current_KRS_Record' only by the word 'full', leaving ambiguity about what additional data is included.

    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?

    No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'Get_Current_KRS_Record'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions for selection.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output format. The description only states the basic function without additional transparency.

    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?

    The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose without any extraneous information. Every word is essential.

    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 absence of an output schema and the existence of a sibling tool, the description lacks information about return values and does not explain what 'current status' entails. This makes it incomplete for a tool with two required parameters and no output specification.

    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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description does not add meaning beyond what is in the schema, thus baseline score of 3.

    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 'Get current status of the entity in KRS' clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (current status), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'Get_Full_KRS_Record' which presumably retrieves the full record.

    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 the sibling, nor any conditions or prerequisites. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

krs-poland-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

krs-poland-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/pkolawa/krs-poland-mcp-server'

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