Retrieve a single Meine BA history entry by ID, including its details and linked documents, to review your benefit or application record.
One entry of the Verlauf with details and document links.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | Yes |
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, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes details and document links, a modest but real disclosure beyond the structured fields.
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?
A single tight sentence with no filler that front-loads the resource and its returned content. It is arguably under-specified for a tool that has behavioral gaps to close, but the sentence itself earns its place.
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 one-param lookup with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description conveys the core content. It is missing the provenance/format of entry_id and does not connect itself to the listing tool, leaving a real gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single entry_id parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description never explains where entry_id comes from (presumably from meineba_verlauf) or its format.
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?
States a specific resource (a single Verlauf entry) and what it returns (details and document links), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling meineba_verlauf list tool. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The agent must infer that this is the single-entry lookup counterpart to meineba_verlauf purely from the word 'One entry'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.