nkfix-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Datenqualität

get_data_quality

Read-only

Checks a property's data for outdated meter readings and missing meters, helping you spot billing data issues before invoice processing.

Instructions

Prüft den Datenbestand einer Immobilie: veraltete Zählerstände und fehlende Zähler.

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": {
      "property_id": "<property_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_data_quality"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`property_id`	Yes	ID der Immobilie, siehe Werkzeug list_properties

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`meters`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

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 The description usefully scopes what is inspected (outdated readings, missing meters), but adds nothing about severity, aggregation, or how results are reported—though the output schema covers return values.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and the object, then the two concrete checks. Nothing is wasted or padded.

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?

With a one-parameter read-only tool and a defined output schema, the description covers what is examined and needs no return-value explanation. Only the when-to-use context, e.g. before billing runs, is left unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already points to list_properties for the ID. The description adds no further meaning about the property_id, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (prüft) and resource (Datenbestand einer Immobilie) and enumerates the two checks performed: veraltete Zählerstände and fehlende Zähler. It does not explicitly contrast itself with related siblings such as check_meter_reading, so it falls short of a 5.

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: an agent can infer this is a pre-check of property master data, but there is no explicit statement of when to run it, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as check_meter_reading or precheck_statement for comparison.

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