Retrieve the JSON schema for a Mahnbescheidsantrag to identify required fields, field descriptions, and mandatory inputs before preparing or filling application data.
JSON-Schema des Antrags (Felder, Pflichtangaben, Beschreibungen).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds that the returned schema contains fields, required fields, and descriptions, but it does not elaborate on return format, freshness, or other behavioral details. This is adequate but minimal beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence with no unnecessary wording. It front-loads the key information: this is the JSON schema for the application.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter schema retrieval tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently indicates that the result is a JSON schema containing fields, required fields, and descriptions. It could say more about the returned structure or intended downstream use, but it is broadly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics and does not introduce any misleading parameter-related information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific resource and return type: the JSON schema of the application ('Antrags'), including fields, required information, and descriptions. It is clear what the tool provides, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as antrag_pruefen or kataloge_suchen.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer its role from the schema-focused name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.