Skip to main content
Glama

Lintelly HR Deutschland

Pausen und Ruhezeit

pausen
Read-onlyIdempotent

German employment law, Germany only: checks shifts against the rules on breaks (Pausen), maximum daily and weekly working time (Höchstarbeitszeit) and rest between shifts (Ruhezeit) under the ArbZG, or the stricter JArbSchG for employees under 18. Returns working time, required and actual break per day, rest period and each violation. Use it to check a shift plan or a time sheet.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tageYesShifts in order, one per day
jugendlichNoPerson is under 18 (JArbSchG)
vortag_endeNoEnd of the last shift on the day before the first day, optional (HH:MM, 24 h)
branche_10_stunden_ruhezeitNoIndustry that may shorten rest to 10 hours: hospital, care, restaurants, transport, broadcasting, agriculture (§ 5 Abs. 2 ArbZG)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
standYes
fallenNo
hinweisYes
quellenYes
ergebnisYesResult of the tool; its fields differ per tool
rechenwegNo
herausgeberYes
naechster_schrittNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / tage / items / properties / datum / 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"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the applicable legal framework (ArbZG vs. stricter JArbSchG for under-18s) and what the result contains (per-day required vs. actual break, rest period, each violation).

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?

Two dense sentences: the first front-loads scope and legal basis, the second front-loads the trigger. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields beyond a brief result summary.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't detail return values, and it still summarizes them at a high level. Together with annotations and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 every parameter including the ArbZG § 5(2) industry exception and the JArbSchG flag. The description adds no format or interaction details beyond what the schema provides, so 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 shifts against ArbZG break / max working time / rest period rules) and scopes it to German law and under-18 JArbSchG. This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling tool, which cover termination, leave, minimum wage, etc.

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?

Explicitly says "Use it to check a shift plan or a time sheet," which gives a concrete trigger context. It also constrains jurisdiction ("Germany only"), but names no exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls 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.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.