reinigungsplan_abrufenRetrieves the agreed cleaning services for a given property ID, including interval, area, and duration in minutes. Use it to obtain a property's cleaning schedule.
Liefert die vereinbarten Leistungen eines Objekts mit Intervall, Bereich und Dauer in Minuten.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objekt_id | Yes | Objekt-ID, z. B. O-1002 |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the result includes interval, area, and duration in minutes, which is useful behavioral context, though it does not mention permissions, scoping, or error behavior. Since an output schema also exists, the extra return detail is helpful but not essential.
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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It could be slightly more explicit about the cleaning plan context, but it is appropriately sized.
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 simple single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece: what the plan contains (interval, area, duration in minutes). It does not explain usage conditions or alternatives, but given the structured metadata, it is largely sufficient.
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?
There is only one parameter (objekt_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining the format via pattern and example ("O-1002"). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ("Liefert") and resource ("vereinbarten Leistungen eines Objekts") and adds what the plan contains: interval, area, and duration in minutes. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools such as objekte_suchen or reklamationen_auflisten.
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 use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states what is returned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.