nkfix-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Abrechnungen

list_statements

Read-only

Retrieve created utility cost statements with billing period, delivery status, and outstanding amount; filter by tenant or property.

Instructions

Erstellte Nebenkostenabrechnungen mit Zeitraum, Zustellung und offenem Betrag.

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_statements"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tenant_id`	No	nur Abrechnungen dieses Mieters
`property_id`	No	nur Abrechnungen dieser Immobilie

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

B3.1/5.0

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 adds one genuine behavioral hint beyond that: only already-created ('erstellte') statements are returned, implying drafts/pre-checks are excluded. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens when both filters are omitted.

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?

A single economical fragment with no filler. It is short and to the point, though the lack of a verb makes it read as a label rather than a front-loaded statement of action.

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?

Wrong — see below.

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% and both filters are documented in the schema ('nur Abrechnungen dieses Mieters' / 'dieser Immobilie'). The description adds no further meaning about the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 phrase 'Erstellte Nebenkostenabrechnungen' identifies the resource and adds a qualifier ('erstellte' = already created/finalized), which hints at scope. But it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from siblings such as get_statement, precheck_statement or list_billing_suggestions, so the agent must infer from the name that this is a listing operation.

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 statement of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for a single statement or a pre-check. The two optional filters imply 'use it to find statements' but the agent gets no routing guidance at all.

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