Lintelly HR Deutschland

Hinweis Urlaubsverfall

urlaubsverfall_hinweis

Read-onlyIdempotent

German employment law, Germany only: writes the notice an employer must give before unused leave can expire (Hinweis auf Urlaubsverfall, § 7 Abs. 3 BUrlG, BAG 9 AZR 423/16), as a finished letter with placeholders instead of names. Returns open days, expiry date, end of carry-over (Übertragung) and whether the letter comes too late. Use it at the start of the year or in autumn when someone asks how to stop leave from piling up or whether leave expires.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`art`	No	jahresbeginn (start of year) or erinnerung (autumn reminder). Default by date: from July erinnerung
`jahr`	No	Leave year, default the year of datum
`datum`	No	Date of the letter, must be in the leave year, default today (YYYY-MM-DD)
`geplant`	No	Days approved and planned, default 0
`vorjahr`	No	Days left from the previous year that were carried over after a timely notice, default 0
`anspruch`	Yes	Leave entitlement of the year in working days
`genommen`	No	Days already taken, default 0
`ansprache`	No	Form of address in the letter: sie or du. Default sie
`uebertragung`	No	Carry-over: gesetzlich (until 31 March) or vertraglich (contract allows longer). Default gesetzlich
`uebertragung_bis`	No	Only vertraglich: carry-over end date in the following year, at the earliest 31 March (YYYY-MM-DD)

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.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 31, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / datum / format
```
Added value: +"date"
```
changedInput schema / properties / jahr / minimum
```
Previous value: -2020New value: +1950
```

changedInput schema / properties / jahr / type

Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"

addedInput schema / properties / uebertragung_bis / 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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description is consistent with that (it produces letter text, it does not store anything). It adds substantive context the annotations cannot: jurisdiction limitation (Germany only), the legal basis, placeholders instead of names, and the fact that it flags whether the notice comes too late.

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?

Two sentences, jurisdiction and legal basis front-loaded, then the practical trigger. The first sentence is dense with parentheticals but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With 10 parameters, an output schema, and full annotations, the description covers what an agent needs: legal scope, what the artifact is, and what is computed. Remaining gaps (e.g., that datum must fall inside the leave year, how invalid inputs behave) are already handled by the schema constraints.

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% and every parameter carries its own description with defaults and enums, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only supplies the domain frame (Übertragung, Hinweis) and adds no format, interaction, or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb and artifact — writes the pre-expiry notice letter (Hinweis auf Urlaubsverfall, § 7 Abs. 3 BUrlG) — plus the computed outputs it returns. The legal-scope framing and the 'letter with placeholders' detail separate it cleanly from siblings like urlaubsanspruch or urlaubsabgeltung.

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 a clear situational trigger: start of year or autumn, when someone asks how to stop leave piling up or whether leave expires. It does not name an alternative sibling or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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.