Assurs LAMal comparator

Read the customer cashback programme

get_active_customer_rewards

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the published cashback programme of Swiss Premium Insurance: status, version, scope, beneficiary, trigger, conditions and terms links. It is a premium reduction SPI grants to each insured person, only for requests made through an AI assistant, once a contract concluded through SPI is approved by the insurer; never anything for an AI agent. No lead is created and this API creates no payment.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_active_customer_rewards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`programs`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add useful context beyond that — 'No lead is created and this API creates no payment' — but the eligibility/agent sentence is ambiguous and reads as if the tool's subject matter is not applicable to agents, which does not help an agent decide how to use the result.

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 content-bearing part is front-loaded and reasonably compact, but the second sentence is a dense run-on mixing eligibility rules, commercial terms and an AI-assistant caveat that is not actionable for the caller. Roughly half of it does not earn its place in a tool definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, zero parameters and full annotation coverage, the description only needed to explain scope and usage context. It explains the domain well but leaves the 'for AI assistant requests, never for an agent' statement unresolved, which is the one piece of context an agent would actually want clarified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing the description needs to compensate for. No parameter claims in the description conflict with the empty schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The first sentence uses a clear verb+resource (read the published cashback programme) and enumerates the returned facets (status, version, scope, beneficiary, trigger, conditions, terms links), which is enough for an agent to know what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling, and the eligibility sentence muddies rather than sharpens the purpose.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no ordering guidance. The clause 'only for requests made through an AI assistant, ... never anything for an AI agent' actively confuses the caller about whether this tool is meant for them.

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

All Assurs LAMal comparator tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?