Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
krs-mcp

krs-mcp

by soba-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get KRS board members

get_board
Read-only

List a Polish company's board, supervisory bodies, and proxies from its current KRS extract after resolving the KRS number with search_companies.

Instructions

List the board, supervisory bodies and proxies of a Polish company from its current KRS extract. Resolve the KRS number first with search_companies.

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
krsYesKRS number, 1-10 digits (padding is applied automatically).
rejestrNoRegistry: P = entrepreneurs, S = associations.P

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful scoping detail that this reflects the 'current' KRS extract, but says nothing about return shape or empty-result cases.

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?

Two short sentences, no waste, with the purpose stated before the prerequisite. Front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers what it returns, its source, and the ordering prerequisite. Only output detail is missing, which is minor here.

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 coverage is 100%, with the krs pattern, padding note and the P/S registry enum all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which meets the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the board, supervisory bodies and proxies') scoped to a source ('from its current KRS extract'), which distinguishes it from get_company and get_company_full.

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 routes the agent to search_companies first to resolve the KRS number, giving real prerequisite guidance. It doesn't say when to prefer get_company or get_company_full instead, so no sibling exclusions.

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