nkfix-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Abrechnungsvorschläge

list_billing_suggestions

Read-only

Lists tenants due for a utility cost statement and returns a suggested billing period, helping users identify who needs a Nebenkostenabrechnung.

Instructions

Mieter, für die eine Nebenkostenabrechnung fällig ist, mit vorgeschlagenem Zeitraum.

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": "list_billing_suggestions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`count`	Yes
`items`	Yes
`omitted`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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 adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain what criteria make a statement 'fällig', whether suggestions are advisory only, or what the suggested period is derived from.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single short clause with no wasted words, which is good, but the fragment lacks a verb and a clear subject-agent, so brevity comes at the cost of precision rather than serving it.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (no parameters, an output schema exists to describe return values, annotations cover safety), so the bar is low and the description is minimally adequate. Still, it never states what the suggestions are based on, which is the main thing an agent would want to know before trusting the output.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of a 'vorgeschlagener Zeitraum' does hint at the shape of the returned suggestion.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource ('Mieter, für die eine Nebenkostenabrechnung fällig ist') and the payload ('vorgeschlagener Zeitraum'), so the content is inferable. But it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and it does not distinguish this suggestion list from related siblings such as get_billing_year_status or precheck_statement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of an alternative tool for checking billing status or prechecking a statement. The agent must guess the trigger condition for calling this instead of the status tools.

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