Lintelly HR Deutschland

BEM-Pflicht prüfen

bem_pflicht

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks whether an employer must offer occupational integration management under German law (betriebliches Eingliederungsmanagement, BEM, § 167 Abs. 2 SGB IX): more than 6 weeks of incapacity to work within the last 12 months, counted in calendar days and in working days, whatever the cause. Returns the counts, the day the limit was crossed and the next steps. Applies from the first employee. Germany only.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`stichtag`	No	Reference date, the 12 months before it are counted; default today (YYYY-MM-DD)
`zeitraeume`	Yes	Periods of incapacity to work (Arbeitsunfähigkeit) of any cause, incl. partial incapacity. Follow-up notes as one period.
`arbeitstage`	No	Working days of the person, default Mo to Fr

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`stand`	Yes
`fallen`	No
`hinweis`	Yes
`quellen`	Yes
`ergebnis`	Yes	Result of the tool; its fields differ per tool
`rechenweg`	No
`herausgeber`	Yes
`naechster_schritt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 31, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / stichtag / format
```
Added value: +"date"
```
addedInput schema / properties / zeitraeume / items / properties / bis / format
```
Added value: +"date"
```
addedInput schema / properties / zeitraeume / items / properties / von / format
```
Added value: +"date"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "ergebnis": {
+      "description": "Result of the tool; its fields differ per tool"
+    },
+    "fallen": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "herausgeber": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "hinweis": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "naechster_schritt": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "quellen": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "geprueft_am": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "grund": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "norm": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "enum": [
+              "bestätigt",
+              "noch nicht bestätigt",
+              "Prüfung überfällig"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "url": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "norm"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "rechenweg": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "stand": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ergebnis",
+    "quellen",
+    "hinweis",
+    "stand",
+    "herausgeber"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: what is counted (calendar and working days), the counting window relative to a reference date, and what the response contains (counts, day the limit was crossed, next steps). Missing only edge behavior (e.g. ongoing periods, partial incapacity handling beyond a hint).

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and object, then the legal test, then the return contents, then the applicability caveat. Dense but every clause carries information an agent needs; no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes it in one clause. With full schema coverage, explicit legal criteria, and clear geographic/employer-size scope, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents stichtag, zeitraeume and arbeitstage in detail. The description reinforces the calendar-day vs working-day distinction, which explains why arbeitstage exists, but adds no syntax or default details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (checks BEM obligation) with the exact statutory anchor (§ 167 Abs. 2 SGB IX) and the concrete trigger threshold. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like schwellen_check or entgeltfortzahlung without opening the schema.

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?

Gives the operative condition (more than 6 weeks of incapacity within 12 months, any cause) and scope limits ('Applies from the first employee. Germany only.'), which effectively tells the agent when the tool is applicable. It does not name an alternative sibling or exclusion cases (e.g. when BEM already running), so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Lintelly HR Deutschland 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.