brandbill

Mietvertrag anlegen

create_contract

Mietvertrag als Entwurf anlegen (ohne Nummer). Mieter: customer_id oder customer_name mit Anschrift. Klauseln kommen aus den Textbausteinen des Kontos, wenn clauses fehlt.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_contract"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	intern, nicht gedruckt
`items`	No	Zubehör für Anlage 1
`place`	No
`clauses`	No	Die §§; ohne Angabe die Textbausteine des Kontos. Leerzeile = neuer Absatz
`vat_rate`	No
`object_sku`	No
`rent_basis`	No	Miete inkl. (gross) oder zzgl. (net) Steuer
`start_date`	No
`customer_id`	No	Mieter aus list_customers: Daten werden kopiert, übergebene Felder haben Vorrang
`notice_unit`	No
`object_name`	No	Mietobjekt, z. B. Rayocomp PS 10
`return_days`	No	Rückgabefrist in Tagen nach Vertragsende
`monthly_rent`	No	Monatsmiete in der Währung des Kontos
`notice_value`	No	Kündigungsfrist nach der Mindestdauer
`contract_date`	No	leer = Tag des Ausstellens; bestimmt die Vertragsnummer
`customer_city`	No
`customer_name`	No	Firma bzw. Name der Person
`lessee_signer`	No
`lessor_signer`	No
`serial_number`	No
`customer_email`	No
`minimum_months`	No
`payment_method`	No	Dauerauftrag oder monatliche Rechnung
`renewal_months`	No	nach der Mindestdauer: 0 = unbefristet weiter, N = jeweils um N Monate; weglassen = nicht geregelt
`customer_street`	No
`customer_contact`	No	Ansprechperson / Unterzeichnende (Vor- und Nachname)
`customer_country`	No	ISO-3166 Alpha-2, z. B. CH
`external_reference`	No	eigene Kennung (z. B. Mietvorgang)
`customer_salutation`	No	Anrede der Ansprechperson
`notice_end_of_month`	No
`customer_is_business`	No	Mieter ist eine Firma; dann unterschreibt customer_contact für sie
`customer_postal_code`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond the schema: the contract is created without a number, and missing clauses are filled from the account's text modules. It says nothing about permissions, what happens on retry (non-idempotent), or what the draft's lifecycle requires next.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its draft/no-number qualifier, then the two rules an agent most needs before calling. Almost no waste; only the lessee sentence is slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity ('mit Anschrift').

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 32-parameter creation tool with zero required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations describing side effects, the description is thin: it never states the minimum viable input, what is returned (e.g., a contract id), or what the next lifecycle step is. An agent could technically call this with an empty object and the description gives no signal that would be wrong.

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?

With 32 parameters and only 56% schema description coverage, the description compensates for just a small slice: the lessee identification rule (customer_id or customer_name plus address) and the clauses fallback when clauses is omitted. The remaining parameters, including enum-bearing ones like notice_unit, are left entirely to the schema, and the address-as-requirement claim is not fully spelled out.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource in 'Mietvertrag als Entwurf anlegen' and scopes it further with '(ohne Nummer)', so the agent knows this produces an unnumbered draft rather than an issued contract. It never names the sibling that takes the draft further (issue_contract, send_contract), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'als Entwurf anlegen', which suggests this is the starting step of the contract lifecycle, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many siblings (issue_contract, revise_contract, create_document). The guidance it does give is about identifying the lessee, not about choosing this tool.

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

All brandbill 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.

Resources

Need Help?