Startet den bezahlten Briefversand: liefert eine Stripe-Checkout-URL. Der MENSCH bezahlt; danach brief_confirm mit der job_id. (Kein kostenloser Direktversand über die KI.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pages | No | Seitenzahl (optional). | |
| country | No | Zielland: DE | AT | CH. | |
| filename | No | Dateiname (optional). | |
| pdfBase64 | Yes | Das zu versendende PDF. | |
| recipient | Yes | Anzeigename des Empfängers (für Beleg). | |
| registered | No | Einwurf-Einschreiben. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the process is paid, requires a human to complete payment, and is not a free direct send. It also reveals the two-step workflow. However, it omits details like what happens if payment fails or the validity period of the checkout URL, leaving minor gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: one states the function and output, the other clarifies the payment workflow and exclusion. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values. It does mention the Stripe-Checkout-URL and implies the job_id in the phrase 'danach brief_confirm mit der job_id'. It also provides workflow context. However, it doesn't fully describe the response shape (e.g., whether the job_id is separate from the URL) or error scenarios, which would be useful but is not strictly necessary for a checkout initiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to since every parameter has a description. It does not clarify relationships like which parameters are needed for a specific country or registered mail, but the schema suffices.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's primary function: 'Startet den bezahlten Briefversand' and specifies the output (Stripe-Checkout-URL). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the paid nature and the follow-up tool brief_confirm, making its role in the workflow unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage context: use this to initiate paid letter dispatch, then call brief_confirm with the returned job_id. It also states a clear exclusion ('Kein kostenloser Direktversand über die KI'), effectively telling the agent 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct action and resource: fax, brief, envelope, template, account, etc. There is no noticeable overlap; even fill_pdf and fill_template are clearly differentiated by type of PDF.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., account_balance, fax_confirm, search_templates). No mixing of conventions or irregular styles.
With 33 tools, the server covers multiple subdomains (PDF, fax, postal, signatures, templates). This is on the higher side but still reasonable for a comprehensive document processing server. However, it could benefit from consolidation.
The tool surface covers core document workflows: fill, sign, scan, fax, mail, template exploration, and account management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., PDF merging or splitting), but most user journeys are supported.
