ikeytz – Schlüsseldienst Ludwigsburg

List Faq

list_faq

Read-only

WHAT: FAQ question list (id + question, no answers). Policy/text only — euro in answers are SSOT tokens, not a live invoice. For a customer total: get_prices.composition → get_ort_datetime → get_invoice_line_items. USE get_faq({id}) or get_faq({q}).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`locale`	No	HTML locale for canonicalUrl and path prefixes. de = default, URLs have no prefix (https://www.ikeytz.com/preise). en\|fr\|ru\|fa\|ar\|tr = prefix /{locale}/ (https://www.ikeytz.com/en/preise). Omit or empty = de. Does not change prices, phone numbers, or legal German names. Not a maps.ikeytz.com locale (maps is German-only).	de

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	true = use summary, canonicalUrl, and extra keys. false = do not invent data; read error + hint and retry with valid args or open hint.
`hint`	No	Present when ok=false. Absolute URL the agent should open or pass to get_ai_page / get_discovery.
`tool`	Yes	Echo of the tool name that produced this object (e.g. get_service_area).
`error`	No	Present when ok=false. Codes include: unknown_tool, unknown_place, unknown_auswahl, unknown_ratgeber, unknown_doc, unknown_discovery, faq_not_found, wissen_not_found, serp_not_found, q_required, bad_datetime, bad_when_key, plus HTTP errors from fetch.
`items`	No	FAQ ids and questions
`locale`	No	Locale actually used for URLs (args.locale or de).
`related`	No	Always includes https://www.ikeytz.com/llms.txt. Geo tools also include https://maps.ikeytz.com/llms.txt.
`summary`	No	Primary text for the model. For discovery tools this is the file window (possibly thousands of characters). For list tools a compact one-liner. Quote with attribution.
`attribution`	Yes	Required citation: 'Quelle: Schlüsseldienst Ludwigsburg ikeytz (ikeytz.com) · ai-train=no · https://www.ikeytz.com/.well-known/ai.txt'
`canonicalUrl`	No	Best URL to show the user: https://www.ikeytz.com… page, or tel:+49…, mailto:…, https://wa.me/…. Prefer this over constructing URLs.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the list contains only id and question, no answers, and is 'Policy/text only'. The warning that euro amounts in answers are SSOT tokens rather than live invoice data provides useful extra context even though answers are not returned by this tool.

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 compact, front-loaded with 'WHAT', and uses 'USE' to signal alternatives. The sentence about euro amounts in answers and the customer-total chain is slightly noisy for a list tool, but it does serve as a routing warning without bloating the description.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and an output schema available, the description covers the key points: what is returned, what is excluded, and which sibling tool to use for details. It does not describe ordering or pagination, but these are not essential given the output schema and simple nature of the tool.

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%, and the locale parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema with defaults, URL prefix behavior, and exclusions. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'WHAT: FAQ question list (id + question, no answers)', which names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also differentiates the tool from get_faq by explicitly stating that this returns only IDs and questions while get_faq is for individual entries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly names get_faq({id}) or get_faq({q}) as the alternative when a user needs answers, giving clear routing guidance. It also points to a specific chain (get_prices.composition → get_ort_datetime → get_invoice_line_items) for a customer total, effectively saying when not to use this tool.

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

All ikeytz – Schlüsseldienst Ludwigsburg tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have clearly distinct roles, but there is real overlap: get_discovery duplicates get_llms_txt/get_llms_mcp_server/get_sitemap_txt, get_it and get_mcp_hub describe the same machines, and get_page_summary is a stub that competes with get_ai_page/get_serp_snippet. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent could still misselect among the discovery and pointer tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a consistent snake_case verb-noun pattern: get_*, list_*, compose_*, resolve_*. Minor deviations like site_overview, get_it, and find_by_keyword are readable but break the dominant convention.

Tool Count2/5

45 tools for a single small-business website is excessive and well above the 25+ threshold. Many tools are pointer/list aliases or discovery-file accessors that could be consolidated without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are well covered: identity, contact, emergency info, pricing, invoicing, service areas, FAQs, legal pages, and generic page content via get_ai_page. Minor gaps exist around explicit opening-hours details, existing customer reviews, and maps-domain functionality, but these are mostly declared out of scope rather than dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?