Skip to main content
Glama
stornoro

Storno CLI

by stornoro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

anaf_declaration_status

Check the online processing status of a declaration filed on ANAF e-guvernare using its upload index and taxpayer CUI/CNP, with states accepted, rejected, processing, or unknown, plus the receipt PDF URL when available.

Instructions

Processing status of a declaration filed on the ANAF e-guvernare portal (after agent_submit_declaration_pdf or any upload that returned an index): ANAF's public StareD112 by upload index and the taxpayer's CUI/CNP. States: ok (accepted), nok (validation errors, see recipisa), processing, unknown (not indexed yet). Storno asks the three StareD112 hosts in turn (www.anaf.ro, stare.anaf.ro, epatrim.anaf.ro), so an outage of one does not hide the state. Returns the recipisa PDF URL when available. Public, no account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cuiYesCUI or CNP the declaration was filed for
indexYesUpload index returned by the portal, or the registration number from the counter (with ghiseu: true)
ghiseuNotrue when the number is the registration number given at the ANAF counter, not an online upload index

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.48
    • addedInput schema / properties / ghiseu
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "true when the number is the registration number given at the ANAF counter, not an online upload index",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / index / description
      Previous value: -"Upload index returned by the portal"New value: +"Upload index returned by the portal, or the registration number from the counter (with ghiseu: true)"
  2. Addedv1.0.28

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the multi-host fallback (queries three hosts in turn) so an outage of one does not hide the state, and it lists the possible return states and the recipisa URL. It also states 'Public, no account' which covers authentication. This is substantial behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't mention potential errors or rate limits.

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?

The description is well-structured: purpose first, then method, states, fallback, return, and access. It packs a lot of relevant detail into a few sentences without being verbose. Slightly longer than minimal but every sentence adds value.

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 status-check tool with no output schema, the description covers the key states, the fallback behavior, the return of the recipisa URL, and access requirements. It doesn't explicitly state what happens if the index is invalid, but that is implied by the 'unknown' state. Overall, an agent can call it correctly with the given information.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the index (from agent_submit_declaration_pdf or any upload) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already explains for each parameter. It doesn't clarify the ghiseu parameter beyond the schema's own description.

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 it returns the processing status of a declaration on ANAF, naming the specific endpoint (StareD112) and the states it returns. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing agent_submit_declaration_pdf and uploads returning an index, making it clear this is the status-check counterpart to upload actions.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: after agent_submit_declaration_pdf or any upload that returned an index. This gives clear context and implies it should be used to check status after such uploads. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like declarations_refresh_statuses, but the usage scenario is well-defined.

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