nkfix-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Verbindung prüfen

check_connection

Read-only

Checks connectivity to a NebenkostenFix instance by verifying the signed-in account, access key scope (read or record), instance version, and warnings; read-only.

Instructions

Prüft die Verbindung zu NebenkostenFix: angemeldetes Konto, Zugriffsschlüssel und dessen Umfang (lesen oder erfassen), Version der Instanz und Warnungen. Liest nur.

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": "check_connection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`account`	Yes
`api_key`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`can_record`	Yes
`auth_method`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 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 and openWorldHint=false, and the description stays consistent while adding substantive context beyond them: it discloses exactly what is inspected (account, key scope read vs. record, instance version, warnings) and confirms no mutation ('Liest nur'). It does not discuss failure modes (e.g., what an invalid key returns), which keeps it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and then enumerates the inspected artifacts, closing with the read-only reassurance. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills its remaining obligation by naming what is verified. Only the absence of any guidance on when to invoke it or how failures manifest keeps it from a 5.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion and instead spends its words on what the call returns, which is the right allocation for a no-argument tool.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Prüft die Verbindung zu NebenkostenFix') and enumerates what the check covers: signed-in account, access key and its scope (read or record), instance version, warnings. An agent can immediately tell this is a connectivity/auth diagnostic rather than a domain data tool like list_invoices or record_payment. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, so it is clear but not explicitly differentiated.

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 only implied: the phrase 'Liest nur' and the diagnostic framing suggest calling it to verify credentials or troubleshoot before other operations, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. An agent can infer the purpose but must supply the usage conditions itself.

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