Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
arbeitsagentur-mcp

arbeitsagentur-mcp

by slopinger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_correspondence

Update a correspondence entry by changing its notes, subject, summary, reference, file path, or objection status, such as marking a Widerspruch as filed.

Instructions

Update a correspondence entry, e.g. mark that a Widerspruch has been filed.

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": {
      "entry_id": "<entry_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_correspondence"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoReplaces the notes
subjectNo
summaryNo
entry_idYes
file_pathNo
referenceNo
objection_statusNoTrack the Widerspruch for a Bescheid

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so mutation semantics are declared. The description adds nothing beyond this: no replacement behavior (which the schema's 'Replaces the notes' implies), no permission/auth needs, no handling of unspecified fields. With annotations carrying the load, the description still earns little credit.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource lead. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing, which is penalized in other dimensions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool at 29% schema coverage, one sentence is inadequate. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the description omits replacement semantics, optional-field behavior, and parameter meaning that the agent needs to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 29% (2 of 7 params described), so the description is expected to compensate but does not. It mentions no parameter by name or format; only the oblique 'Widerspruch' reference loosely relates to objection_status. Five parameters (subject, summary, file_path, reference, entry_id) remain undocumented in both places.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update a correspondence entry'), which separates it from log_correspondence and list_correspondence. The 'e.g. mark that a Widerspruch has been filed' example clarifies the intended scope. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 example ('mark that a Widerspruch has been filed') implies a usage scenario, giving an agent a concrete cue. However, it never states when to use this versus log_correspondence (new entries) or delete_entry, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools