Overfit — German tenders & procurement law

Vergabeverfahren ermitteln

verfahrenswahl_ermitteln

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns a list of procurement procedures with status frei (available), voraussetzung (available under conditions), or nein (unavailable) and the legal basis for each (§ GWB / § VgV / UVgO; Stand 2026-08-15). Suited to the question which procedure type is required or permissible for a given contract value, authority type and service category. With bundesland (e.g. BY or Bayern) the tool selects the sub-threshold rules itself: federal authority → federal rules (UVgO), Mecklenburg-Vorpommern → its own state rules, every other state → generic guidance with the state law to check. Takes into account EU thresholds, sub-threshold regime and special-case flags (sole source, urgency, prior call with no tenders). Deadlines and bid scoring are computed by vergabe_fristen_berechnen and wertungsmatrix_berechnen.

Example user questions: "Welche Verfahrensart darf ich wählen?"; "Ist ein Verhandlungsverfahren zulässig?"; "Darf ich freihändig vergeben?"; "Wann ist ein Direktauftrag erlaubt?"; "Offenes oder nicht offenes Verfahren?"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wert`	Yes	Estimated contract value (net EUR).
`regelwerk`	No	Optional override of the sub-threshold framework: mv=Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, bund=federal authority, anders=any other state (generic guidance). Usually empty, since bundesland selects the framework. Only relevant below the EU threshold.	anders
`bundesland`	No	Federal state of the contracting authority, code or name (BY, Bayern, NW, Nordrhein-Westfalen …). Selects the sub-threshold rules automatically.
`auftraggeber`	Yes	Type of contracting authority (same as in schwellenwert).
`leistungsart`	Yes	Type of service (same as in schwellenwert).
`dringlichkeit`	No	Extreme, not self-caused urgency.
`keineAngebote`	No	Prior call for competition yielded no (acceptable) tenders.
`alleinstellung`	No	Only one company can provide the service (sole source / exclusive rights).
`nichtBeschreibbar`	No	Service cannot be specified sufficiently / requires conceptual or innovative solutions.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / regelwerk / description

Previous value: -"Optional override of the sub-threshold framework: mv=Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, bund=federal authority, anders=any other state (generic guidance). Normally leave empty and pass bundesland instead. Only relevant below the EU threshold."New value: +"Optional override of the sub-threshold framework: mv=Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, bund=federal authority, anders=any other state (generic guidance). Usually empty, since bundesland selects the framework. Only relevant below the EU threshold."

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 6, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / bundesland

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Federal state of the contracting authority, code or name (BY, Bayern, NW, Nordrhein-Westfalen …). Selects the sub-threshold rules automatically.",
+  "examples": [
+    "BY"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / regelwerk / description

Previous value: -"Sub-threshold framework: mv=Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, bund=federal, anders=other state (shows generic guidance). Only relevant if below EU threshold."New value: +"Optional override of the sub-threshold framework: mv=Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, bund=federal authority, anders=any other state (generic guidance). Normally leave empty and pass bundesland instead. Only relevant below the EU threshold."

First observedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is low, yet the description adds substantial behavior: the state-dependent sub-threshold selection logic (federal→UVgO, MV→own rules, others→generic guidance), EU threshold handling, special-case flags, and data currency (Stand 2026-08-15). This is real decision logic not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the return shape and applicability, and every sentence carries information. It is somewhat long, and the example-question list is a bit padding-like, but nothing is truly wasted.

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?

For a 9-parameter domain tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how sub-threshold rules are selected, which inputs trigger special-case logic, and where sibling tools take over. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the bundesland-vs-regelwerk precedence (bundesland selects the framework; regelwerk is only an override below the EU threshold), which the schema does not spell out.

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+resource (determining the permissible procurement procedure) and immediately enumerates the returned statuses (frei/voraussetzung/nein) and legal bases. It explicitly separates itself from vergabe_fristen_berechnen and wertungsmatrix_berechnen, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Names the exact question class it answers ('which procedure type is required or permissible') and lists concrete example user questions in German. It also states when other tools apply (deadlines and bid scoring are handled by the two named siblings), giving explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Overfit — German tenders & procurement law 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?