A
licenseA
qualityF
maintenanceAI assistants can size heat pumps, estimate energy costs, and verify cold-climate performance using bundled data and no API keys.
6
3
MIT
Australian Heat Pump Hot Water Rebate & Payback
Server Details
Heat pump vs gas hot water (AU): rebate stack, net outlay and payback verdict by postcode.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Uptime
- 100.0% over 37 days
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2024-11-05
- URL
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Scored across 1 tool
Disambiguation5/5
Only one tool exists, so there is no risk of confusing it with other tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined.
Naming Consistency5/5
With a single tool, naming consistency is not applicable. The name 'check_hot_water_switch' is descriptive and follows a clear verb_noun pattern.
Tool Count3/5
One tool for a specific domain is borderline. While the tool is comprehensive, a few tools for distinct subtasks (e.g., rebate eligibility, payback calculation) might improve modularity and clarity.
Completeness4/5
The tool covers the main use case of evaluating heat pump water heaters with rebates and payback. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking a separate tool for general rebate lookup without full calculation.
Available Tools
1 toolcheck_hot_water_switchAInspect
Use when someone asks whether a heat pump hot water system is worth it in Australia, which rebates they can stack, how much a heat pump costs after rebates, or how long it takes to pay off — including "can I combine the STC rebate with Victorian Energy Upgrades or Solar Victoria", "do I qualify", and "is a heat pump cheaper to run than gas". Given a postcode, the current hot water system and a few household facts, returns the rebates actually stackable at that postcode (with each scheme's eligibility gates and source), the net-of-rebate outlay, the payback period, and which term — rebates, the avoidable gas supply charge, the energy saving, or a replacement you were buying anyway — is really carrying the decision. Modelled estimate, not financial advice.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| people | No | household size (drives hot water demand) | |
| postcode | Yes | AU postcode — rebate eligibility is postcode-gated | |
| locally_made | No | an eligible locally made unit, which raises the Victorian caps | |
| current_system | Yes | what you have now | |
| owner_occupier | No | tenure — gates the means-tested state rebates | |
| property_value | No | property value — Solar Victoria requires under $3,000,000 | |
| replacement_due | No | true if the existing system is failing and you were replacing it anyway | |
| household_income | No | combined owner taxable income, for means-tested schemes (Solar Victoria caps at $150,000) | |
| system_age_years | No | age of the system being replaced; Solar Victoria requires at least 3 years | |
| building_age_years | No | age of the building; Victorian Energy Upgrades requires at least 2 years | |
| gas_only_for_hot_water | No | true if hot water is your last gas appliance, so the daily supply charge can be avoided |
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses return values (rebates, net cost, payback, primary decision driver) and includes a disclaimer ('Modelled estimate, not financial advice'). However, it does not mention error handling, data assumptions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph, moderately concise but not extremely. It front-loads use cases but includes some redundancy (e.g., mentions rebates twice). Could be more structured with bullet points.
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?
Given 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context on purpose and returns but lacks details on response format, edge cases, or parameter interactions. It covers the essentials for an initial understanding.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it mentions a few parameters (postcode, current system) but does not elaborate on how they are used.
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 explicitly states the tool evaluates heat pump hot water system feasibility in Australia, including rebates, costs, and payback period. It uses specific verbs like 'use when' and 'returns', and clearly defines the domain and output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description begins with 'Use when someone asks whether...' and lists concrete use cases (worth, rebates, costs, payback). It provides clear guidance on when to invoke, though no alternatives are mentioned due to lack of siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
- First observed
check_hot_water_switch
Related MCP Connectors
Solar, weatherization, EV charging, battery and heat-pump decision tools for AI agents.
Sourced, dated US home-energy program truth by ZIP.
GB solar/battery comparisons and Ofgem rates. Five trial calls, then 0.01 USDC per eligible call.
BTU sizing, window-seal length, heatwave outlook, running costs, balcony solar subsidies (DE/EU).
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceEnables carbon emission calculations for Australian electricity and gas consumption using official National Greenhouse Accounts 2024 data, supporting all states and territories.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceNine tools for indoor climate and household energy in Germany/EU: BTU sizing for a room, portable-AC window-seal length, live heatwave outlook, appliance running costs, heating watts, dew point for safe ventilation, and balcony-storage subsidy rules. Also searches and reads 133 guides on getecoback.com; no auth, no personal data, and every answer returns its source URL.-
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceOne-call Australian prudential data plumbing via APRA — cited responses for banking, superannuation and insurance context, not a data broker.6138 PyPIMIT
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.