Answers about vareen.net from its website: products, technical data, comparisons, sales contact.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have mostly distinct purposes: frage answers website-sourced questions, while an_vertrieb hands a request to the sales team for binding information. There is some overlap for price or quote questions, which could plausibly route to either tool, but the descriptions clarify the boundary between website facts and binding commitments.
Both names are German and use snake_case, but they follow different conventions: frage is a bare noun, while an_vertrieb is a preposition-plus-noun phrase. The set is readable but lacks a predictable verb_noun pattern that would make tool selection more systematic.
Two tools is borderline thin for a server, though each maps to a clear workflow: answering questions and escalating to sales. The minimal surface fits a lightweight website assistant, but leaves little room for auxiliary operations such as product lookup or request tracking.
The surface covers the two core workflows of website Q&A and sales handoff, including follow-up context via the 'nach' parameter. However, it lacks product/catalog browsing, request status checking, direct contact retrieval, and explicit consent tracking despite the stated consent requirement, which may cause dead ends for structured tasks.
Hands a request on behalf of the buyer to the vareen.net team — for binding information on prices, quotes, contracts or individual commitments. Only use with the buyer's consent; the team replies by e-mail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nach | No | Id of the last answer (conversation context for the team) | |
| name | No | ||
| Yes | The buyer's e-mail address | ||
| firma | No | Company | |
| abgleich | No | Id of a requirement check (its result goes to the team) | |
| anliegen | Yes | What the request is about | |
| freigabe | Yes | true = the buyer has explicitly agreed to pass on these details (required) | |
| nachricht | No | Message | |
| zeitrahmen | No | e.g. “Q1 2027”, “purchase within 3 months” | |
| anforderungen | No | The buyer's technical requirements | |
| offene_fragen | No | Questions still to be clarified | |
| naechster_schritt | No | Desired next step |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important traits: the request leaves the system to a human team, the answer arrives asynchronously by e-mail, and consent is mandatory before sending. It does not say what the tool returns at call time (confirmation, ticket id, nothing), whether repeated submissions are deduplicated, or what happens if the team cannot answer — gaps that matter for a 12-parameter outbound escalation.
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?
Two sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the subject matter before the consent constraint and the reply channel. No filler and nothing buried.
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?
For a tool with 12 parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the what, the when and the reply mechanism, but leaves the return value entirely unexplained — the agent cannot tell whether a successful call produces a reference number to relay or simply nothing until the e-mail arrives.
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 coverage is 92%, so the parameters are already well documented and the baseline applies. The description maps loosely onto 'freigabe' (consent), 'anliegen' and 'naechster_schritt' (what the request is about), but adds no format, ordering or default guidance beyond what the schema already says.
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 states a concrete action — handing a buyer's request to the vareen.net team — and scopes it to binding information on prices, quotes, contracts and commitments. That is a clear verb+resource pairing an agent can act on. It never names the sibling 'frage', so the boundary between an ordinary question and a binding sales escalation must be inferred from the phrase 'binding information'.
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?
It gives the selecting condition ('binding information on prices, quotes, contracts or individual commitments') and an explicit precondition ('Only use with the buyer's consent'). What it omits is the negative case: nothing says non-binding or general questions should go to 'frage' instead, so the agent is not explicitly routed away from this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Answers a question about vareen.net from the company's own website, with numbered sources, in the language of the question. If the question names two products and a comparison, a side-by-side of the technical data is added. What the website does not say is not answered. For a follow-up in the same conversation pass the id of the previous answer as “nach”.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nach | No | Id of the previous answer (for follow-up questions) | |
| frage | Yes | The question in natural language |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses numbered sources, answer language following the question, an added side-by-side data table for two-product comparisons, and a refusal behavior for topics the site doesn't cover. It omits latency/auth/failure-mode details but the core behavior profile is visible.
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?
Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then output shape, then comparison edge case, then follow-up mechanics. No sentence is filler and each adds a distinct rule.
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?
For a 2-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers the essentials: what it answers, what it returns (numbered sources), and how to chain follow-ups. Minor gaps remain on the lifetime/format of the answer id and what happens when no source is found.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented ('frage' = natural-language question, 'nach' = previous answer id). The description's note about passing the previous answer id as 'nach' largely restates the schema, adding only the 'same conversation' framing — baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Answers a question about vareen.net from the company's own website') plus the scope of its answer space. The purpose is unambiguous, but it never names or contrasts with the sibling an_vertrieb, so an agent must infer why it should pick this over the sales tool.
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?
Gives clear conditions: use it for website-grounded questions, pass 'nach' for follow-ups in the same conversation, and treat site-absent information as unanswerable. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating explicit when-not-to-use-tool-X rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
an_vertriebfrageRead-only answers from vocenya.com: plans and prices, products, industries, locations, guides.
Answers questions about a business using its indexed website content, with cited sources.
Official answers about Helena Bioinformatics and its products, with citations to public sources.
Verified facts about eVoost AI: products, FAQ, site search and contact channels.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.