rechtsklar24

Stichtag einer Pflicht im Onlineshop-Recht

get_obligation_dates

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use for "seit wann gilt", "ab wann", "wann kommt", "Frist", "Stichtag", "Übergangsfrist" around German/EU e-commerce obligations: Widerrufsbutton (§ 356a BGB), GPSR, BFSG (Barrierefreiheit), Greenwashing-Verbot/EmpCo, neue Produkthaftungsrichtlinie, Preisangabenverordnung 2022, Erlöschen des Widerrufsrechts. Returns the date from rechtsklar24's source register with the statute, the source URL and the date it was last checked, and says "gilt seit" or "gilt ab" computed from today. General information only: it does not say whether a particular shop is affected or compliant.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "thema": "<thema>"
    },
    "name": "get_obligation_dates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`thema`	Yes	widerrufsbutton = Pflicht zur elektronischen Widerrufsfunktion; gpsr = Produktsicherheitsverordnung; bfsg = Barrierefreiheit; greenwashing_empco = Greenwashing-Verbot; produkthaftung = Umsetzungsfrist der neuen Produkthaftungsrichtlinie; preisangaben_pangv = PAngV 2022 mit 30-Tage-Regel für Streichpreise; widerrufsrecht_erloeschen = Höchstfrist ohne korrekte Belehrung.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`heute`	Yes
`stand`	No
`thema`	Yes
`titel`	Yes
`fakten`	Yes
`status`	Yes	gilt_seit = Stichtag liegt vor heute; gilt_ab = Stichtag liegt in der Zukunft; frist = Zeitraum statt Stichtag.
`info_url`	Yes
`stichtag`	No
`disclaimer`	Yes
`register_url`	Yes
`stichtag_text`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value: it says the date comes from a maintained source register, is returned with statute, source URL and last-checked timestamp, is phrased as "gilt seit"/"gilt ab" computed from today, and is informational only — freshness and liability caveats the annotations do not convey.

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 trigger phrases, then subject coverage, then return behavior and disclaimer — a sensible order with no filler. It is dense and slightly long for a one-parameter lookup, but every clause carries routing or scope information.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the domain vocabulary, the covered obligations, the return shape (date + statute + URL + last-checked) and the limits of the answer. Only the absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter has a per-value explanation, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description restates the subject areas in prose (mapping roughly to the enum values), adding confirmation but no syntax or edge-case information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the Stichtag (date) of a named German/EU e-commerce obligation from rechtsklar24's source register, and enumerates the covered subjects (Widerrufsbutton, GPSR, BFSG, Greenwashing/EmpCo, Produkthaftung, PAngV, Widerrufsrecht-Erlöschen). The resource is clearly distinct from the numeric-calculation siblings, though none is named explicitly, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use trigger phrases ("seit wann gilt", "ab wann", "wann kommt", "Frist", "Stichtag", "Übergangsfrist") tied to the domain, which is strong routing guidance. It also carves out a scope exclusion ("does not say whether a particular shop is affected or compliant"), but never points to an alternative sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All rechtsklar24 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?