nkfix-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Zählerstand prüfen

check_meter_reading

Read-only

Validates a meter reading against prior readings within 30 days (or summed sub-meters) and returns checked=false when no comparison exists; stores no data.

Instructions

Prüft, ob ein Zählerstand zu den bisherigen Ablesungen passt. NebenkostenFix vergleicht nur mit einer Ablesung, die höchstens 30 Tage entfernt ist (beim Hauptzähler mit der Summe der Unterzähler); ohne sie ist checked=false. Speichert nichts.

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": {
      "meter_id": "<meter_id>",
      "reading_date": "<reading_date>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "check_meter_reading"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`value`	Yes	abgelesener Zählerstand
`meter_id`	Yes	ID des Zählers, siehe Werkzeug list_meters
`reading_date`	Yes	Datum als YYYY-MM-DD

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	ok, success, warning oder unknown
`checked`	Yes	true: NebenkostenFix hat verglichen, entweder mit einer Ablesung binnen 30 Tagen (dann steht reference_date) oder, bei warning/success, auch ohne sie. false: es gab nichts zum Vergleichen; ein „ok“ sagt dann nichts über den Wert
`message`	Yes
`reference_date`	Yes	Datum der nächstgelegenen bekannten Ablesung
`reference_value`	Yes
`deviation_percent`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit for disclosing the non-obvious 30-day comparison window, the sub-meter aggregation rule, and the no-persistence behavior. It does not say how mismatches beyond checked=false are surfaced, so it adds useful but not exhaustive behavioral context.

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 purpose and followed by the business rule and the persistence note; no filler. The parenthetical about sub-meter sums is dense but earns its place.

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?

All three required parameters are schema-documented, an output schema exists so return values need not be restated, and the one genuinely non-obvious rule (the 30-day window and sub-meter aggregation) is called out. 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.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% — value, meter_id (with a pointer to list_meters), and the YYYY-MM-DD date format are all documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 and object ('Prüft, ob ein Zählerstand zu den bisherigen Ablesungen passt') and adds 'Speichert nichts', which cleanly separates it from the write-side sibling record_meter_reading. An agent can tell validation apart from recording without opening either schema.

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?

Explains the operative condition for a meaningful check (only comparisons within 30 days; main meters compare against the sum of sub-meters) and the outcome when that condition fails (checked=false). It does not explicitly name record_meter_reading as the alternative for persisting a reading, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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