ecoExperten Energieausweis
Server Details
Order official German energy certificates (Energieausweis) from chat — on invoice, 1-2 days.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct, clearly defined purpose: status inquiry, ordering, pre-check, and product info. No overlap or ambiguity.
All names use German and underscores, but pattern varies: verb_noun (bestell_status) vs noun_verb (bestellung_aufgeben) vs noun_noun (energieausweis_info). Mostly consistent.
4 tools is ideal for a focused service like energy certificate ordering—covers key operations without being sparse or bloated.
Covers info, pre-check, ordering, and status. Missing update/cancel functionality, but core workflow is complete for typical use.
Available Tools
4 toolsbestell_statusARead-onlyInspect
Bearbeitungsstand einer Energieausweis-Bestellung abfragen (Bestellnummer im Format EA-XXXXXXXX).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bestellnummer | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal behavioral transparency beyond confirming it is a query. No contradictions, but no additional traits disclosed (e.g., response format, error behavior).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the critical format requirement. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (covering return values), the description is complete enough for a simple query tool. It covers the core purpose and input format. Missing: a brief note on what the output represents (e.g., status values) but that is likely in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% documentation coverage, so the description bears the burden. It adds the format constraint 'EA-XXXXXXXX' for the single parameter, which is useful. However, it does not elaborate on what the parameter represents beyond its name, but the name 'Bestellnummer' is self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the purpose: querying the processing status of an energy certificate order. The verb 'abfragen' and resource 'Bearbeitungsstand' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'bestellung_pruefen' or 'energieausweis_info', which may also involve status checks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after an order has been placed, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The format hint for the order number is helpful, but no exclusions or context for sibling selection are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
bestellung_aufgebenAInspect
Verbrauchsausweis verbindlich bestellen (59,00 EUR, Kauf auf Rechnung).
Löst eine zahlungspflichtige Bestellung aus. agb_akzeptiert und
zahlungspflichtig_bestaetigt geben die ausdrückliche Zustimmung des
Nutzers zu den AGB (ecoexperten.com/agb) und zur zahlungspflichtigen
Bestellung wieder; ohne beide Zustimmungen lehnt der Server die
Bestellung ab. Alle Angaben werden serverseitig gegen die GEG-Regeln
geprüft. test_modus=true simuliert die Bestellung, ohne sie abzusenden.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ort | Yes | ||
| plz | Yes | ||
| Yes | |||
| keller | No | Unbeheizt | |
| strasse | Yes | ||
| telefon | No | ||
| vorname | Yes | ||
| kuehlung | No | Keine Kühlung | |
| lueftung | No | Fensterlüftung | |
| nachname | Yes | ||
| test_modus | No | ||
| energy_unit | Yes | ||
| gebaeudetyp | Yes | ||
| has_vacancy | No | Nein | |
| consumption_1 | Yes | ||
| consumption_2 | Yes | ||
| consumption_3 | Yes | ||
| energy_source | Yes | ||
| agb_akzeptiert | Yes | ||
| anzahl_wohnungen | Yes | ||
| baujahr_gebaeude | Yes | ||
| has_improvements | No | Nein | |
| consumption_start | Yes | ||
| nutzt_erneuerbare | No | Nein | |
| vacancy_percent_1 | No | ||
| vacancy_percent_2 | No | ||
| vacancy_percent_3 | No | ||
| anlass_ausstellung | No | Vermietung | |
| has_second_heating | No | Nein | |
| hot_water_included | Yes | ||
| energetisch_saniert | No | Nein | |
| baujahr_waermeerzeuger | Yes | ||
| energietraeger_heizung | Yes | ||
| gebaeudenutzflaeche_m2 | Yes | ||
| energietraeger_warmwasser | Yes | ||
| doppelbestellung_bestaetigt | No | ||
| zahlungspflichtig_bestaetigt | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description must add behavioral context. It does: it discloses the financial obligation ('zahlungspflichtig'), the requirement for explicit user consent, server-side validation against GEG rules, and the simulation option (test_modus=true). No contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short (4 sentences) and front-loads the core purpose and price. It could be more structured, but it is concise and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could better organize the behavioral rules and parameter hints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (37 parameters, 22 required) and the existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of most input fields, their allowed values, or how they influence the order. The agent would lack sufficient context to fill all required parameters correctly without additional external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it only mentions three parameters (agb_akzeptiert, zahlungspflichtig_bestaetigt, test_modus) by name, leaving 34 other parameters (including required ones like vorname, email, etc.) entirely undocumented. The description adds almost no semantic value for the majority of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Verbrauchsausweis verbindlich bestellen (59,00 EUR, Kauf auf Rechnung)' – ordering a consumption certificate for a fixed price. It also distinguishes itself from siblings (bestell_status, bestellung_pruefen, energieausweis_info) which are about status, checking, and info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for use: it triggers a binding paid order, requires two boolean confirmations (agb_akzeptiert and zahlungspflichtig_bestaetigt), and mentions a test mode. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use or list alternatives, the sibling tool names imply when to use this tool for actual ordering vs. checking/info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
bestellung_pruefenARead-onlyInspect
Verbrauchsausweis-Bestellung vorprüfen (Pflichtfelder + GEG-Regeln), OHNE zu bestellen.
Gebäudedaten: gebaeudetyp (Einfamilienhaus/Zweifamilienhaus/Mehrfamilienhaus),
Adresse, Baujahre, anzahl_wohnungen, Wohnfläche in m².
Verbrauch: consumption_start = Beginn der ältesten von 3 Jahres-Abrechnungsperioden
(JJJJ-MM); consumption_1..3 = Jahresverbräuche in energy_unit (z. B. "kWh Brennwert");
hot_water_included = "Ja"/"Nein"/"Unsicher". Kostenlose Vorprüfung
ohne Bestellwirkung.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ort | Yes | ||
| plz | Yes | ||
| keller | No | Unbeheizt | |
| strasse | Yes | ||
| kuehlung | No | Keine Kühlung | |
| lueftung | No | Fensterlüftung | |
| energy_unit | Yes | ||
| gebaeudetyp | Yes | ||
| has_vacancy | No | Nein | |
| consumption_1 | Yes | ||
| consumption_2 | Yes | ||
| consumption_3 | Yes | ||
| energy_source | Yes | ||
| anzahl_wohnungen | Yes | ||
| baujahr_gebaeude | Yes | ||
| has_improvements | No | Nein | |
| consumption_start | Yes | ||
| nutzt_erneuerbare | No | Nein | |
| vacancy_percent_1 | No | ||
| vacancy_percent_2 | No | ||
| vacancy_percent_3 | No | ||
| anlass_ausstellung | No | Vermietung | |
| has_second_heating | No | Nein | |
| hot_water_included | Yes | ||
| energetisch_saniert | No | Nein | |
| baujahr_waermeerzeuger | Yes | ||
| energietraeger_heizung | Yes | ||
| gebaeudenutzflaeche_m2 | Yes | ||
| energietraeger_warmwasser | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'ohne Bestellwirkung' and adds that it checks 'Pflichtfelder + GEG-Regeln', which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loading the purpose and then listing parameters. It could be more structured with bullet points for parameter groups, but it is not overly verbose and uses line breaks for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 29 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers the main required fields but glosses over many optional ones. It does not detail the GEG validation rules or the output format, though an output schema exists. For a pre-check tool, more specific validation behavior would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains key parameters like gebaeudetyp, Baujahre, consumption_start format (JJJJ-MM), and hot_water_included options. However, it omits many optional parameters (e.g., keller, lueftung, has_vacancy), so it only partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'vorprüfen' (pre-check) and the resource 'Verbrauchsausweis-Bestellung' with specific scope: 'Pflichtfelder + GEG-Regeln'. It explicitly says 'OHNE zu bestellen', distinguishing it from the sibling 'bestellung_aufgeben' which places orders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for validation before ordering by stating 'OHNE zu bestellen'. It provides context that it's a pre-check, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The sibling tools (bestellung_aufgeben) are known from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
energieausweis_infoARead-onlyInspect
Produktinfo: Energieausweis für Wohngebäude bestellen (Preise, benötigte Unterlagen, gesetzliche Voraussetzungen).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds content details (prices, documents, legal prerequisites) but doesn't reveal response format or data freshness. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence front-loaded with 'Produktinfo'. Concise and effective, though could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing items).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema and zero parameters, the description covers purpose and content. Could mention how info is presented (e.g., text vs. structured) but adequate given sibling context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, schema coverage is 100% trivially. Description adds no parameter info but is not needed. Baseline 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides product info for ordering an energy certificate for residential buildings, including prices, documents, and legal requirements. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (order status, place order, check order).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for pre-order information and is distinct from siblings, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use it. The context signals (sibling names) help differentiate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!