aidoo-mcp-server

aidoo_get_contract

Retrieve contract details from Aidoo by providing its contract ID, with optional linked data via extensions.

Instructions

Rufe Details eines einzelnen Vertrags ab.

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": {
      "contract_id": "<contract_id>"
    },
    "name": "aidoo_get_contract"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`extensions`	No	Verknüpfte Daten einschließen
`contract_id`	Yes	Vertrags-ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'abrufen' (retrieve), implying a read operation, but gives no details about side effects, errors, or what data is included. For a tool with no annotation safety hints, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words or irrelevant information.

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?

For a simple get-by-id tool, the description is minimally viable. However, the absence of an output schema and any mention of return value or error behavior leaves the agent with limited context. The description is adequate but not enriched.

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%, with both 'contract_id' and 'extensions' documented. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully handles parameter understanding.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Rufe Details eines einzelnen Vertrags ab' (retrieve details of a single contract). It specifies a verb (abrufen) and a resource (Vertrag), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_contracts by emphasizing 'eines einzelnen' (a single).

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?

The description implies the tool is for fetching one contract by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_contracts or get_expiring_contracts. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving usage to be inferred from the name and siblings.

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