Commerce for Agents

Submit Energy Switch Request

submit-switch-request

DestructiveIdempotent

Files a concierge switch request for an offer from a comparison: contract data, IBAN and the consents in one call. The booking form opened by start-booking calls it; autonomous MCP clients that hold the user's complete data and authorization can call it directly. Stores the request encrypted, sends the confirmation emails and returns only masked data. An operator later submits the contract application to the provider.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	Yes	Offer reference from a compare-tariffs result (field `ref`).
`iban`	Yes	IBAN as entered in the form; spaces allowed.
`email`	Yes	Email address — receives the booking confirmation and provider documents.
`phone`	No	Phone number (optional, some providers ask for it).
`street`	Yes	Street of the supply address (Straße).
`language`	No	Language of the conversation — used for the confirmation email. Default: "de".
`lastName`	Yes	Last name (Nachname).
`birthDate`	Yes	Date of birth, ISO format YYYY-MM-DD. Energy providers require it for the contract.
`firstName`	Yes	First name (Vorname).
`moveInDate`	No	Move-in date (Umzugsdatum), ISO YYYY-MM-DD. Required for switchType "relocation", ignored for a switch.
`salutation`	Yes	Salutation (Anrede), required by the providers: "herr", "frau" or "divers".
`switchType`	Yes	"switch": changing provider at the current address (Anbieterwechsel). "relocation": moving in / first contract at this address (Umzug/Neueinzug).
`houseNumber`	Yes	House number (Hausnummer), e.g. "12a".
`meterNumber`	No	Meter number (Zählernummer, optional — printed on the meter or the last bill).
`accountHolder`	No	Account holder if different from the contract holder.
`authorization`	Yes	The three consents the user gave in the form, with the wording versions shown to them.
`idempotencyKey`	Yes	Random per form instance. A retry with the same key returns the first result instead of filing twice.
`desiredStartDate`	No	Desired contract start, ISO YYYY-MM-DD. Omit for the next possible date.
`previousProvider`	No	Current/previous energy provider. Required for switchType "switch".
`previousCustomerNumber`	No	Customer number at the previous provider (Kundennummer, optional but speeds up the switch).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`tariff`	Yes
`provider`	Yes
`nextSteps`	Yes
`requestId`	Yes
`maskedIban`	Yes
`annualTotalEur`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 26, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / context

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Why are you calling this tool? Briefly describe the user's goal.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

First observedSep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by stating it 'stores the request encrypted, sends the confirmation emails and returns only masked data', and that an operator later submits the contract application. This discloses side effects (email sending) and storage behavior beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction.

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 three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second gives usage context, and the third describes behavior and downstream action. Front-loaded with the core function, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 20 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage scenario, side effects, and the follow-up operator action. It does not detail the output schema (which exists) or error cases, but that's acceptable. It could mention that switchType includes relocation, but the schema covers that. Overall complete enough for an agent to call correctly.

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%, so every parameter already has a description. The description only summarizes the parameter groups ('contract data, IBAN and the consents in one call') which adds minimal extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the schema carries the semantic load.

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 the tool 'files a concierge switch request for an offer from a comparison' – a specific verb (files) and resource (switch request) with context. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the relationship with start-booking and the direct-call option for autonomous clients, so an agent can tell it apart.

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?

The description explains when to use it: either via the booking form opened by start-booking, or directly by autonomous clients that hold complete data and authorization. This implies the requirement for authorization but doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'do not call without an offer ref'). It also notes the operator later submits the contract application, giving flow context. Clear enough but not exhaustive.

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

All Commerce for Agents 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?