Lintelly HR Deutschland

Vertragsbaustein mit Text

vertragsbaustein

Read-onlyIdempotent

Germany only. Get one German employment contract clause (Vertragsbaustein) by key, e.g. B3 (home office), C2 (overtime allowance), D18 (Christmas bonus). Returns when it fits, the inputs with limits and safe defaults, norms, court rulings, mandatory safeguards, what is blocked and the clause text in German with [Name] as placeholder. If required inputs are missing, it lists them instead of returning a text with gaps; call again with angaben.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`angaben`	No	Inputs of the clause as field and value, e.g. {feld: tage, wert: 2}. Numbers German style (4.500,50), options exactly as listed
`kennung`	Yes	Key of the clause, e.g. B3
`eintritt`	No	Start of employment, only if the clause needs it (YYYY-MM-DD)
`gehalt_monat`	No	Gross monthly salary in euro, only if the clause needs it
`wochenstunden`	No	Weekly working hours, only if the clause needs it

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.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 31, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / eintritt / 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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the partial-failure behavior (missing inputs are listed rather than emitting a text with gaps) and the scope restriction to Germany. Return payload is enumerated too, which is partly redundant with the output schema.

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?

Scope and action are front-loaded in the first sentence and the missing-input clause is the most useful sentence in the whole text. The long middle sentence enumerating return contents is somewhat list-heavy, though each item is informative.

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 read-only, idempotent key lookup with a full output schema, this covers scope, key format, the input-completion loop, and output shape. The one unaddressed case is an unknown/out-of-range key, where behavior (empty result vs. error) is not described.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the role of 'angaben' in the retry flow (call again with the missing inputs) and illustrating valid kennung values, which the schema's pattern alone does not convey.

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 ('Get one German employment contract clause (Vertragsbaustein) by key'), scopes it ('Germany only'), and gives concrete key examples (B3, C2, D18). The phrase 'one ... by key' lets an agent distinguish this single-clause lookup from the search-oriented sibling vertragsbausteine_suchen without opening either 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?

Clear context is given: use it when you already hold a clause key, and the two-step loop for incomplete inputs is spelled out ('If required inputs are missing, it lists them... call again with angaben'). It stops short of a 5 because the sibling search tool for discovering keys is never named as the alternative.

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.