describe_power_interconnection_queue_v1Describe valid filters, groupings, metrics, detail fields, and citation fields for power.interconnection_queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds the specific scope of the metadata (filters, groupings, metrics, detail fields, citation fields), which outlines what the agent can expect. It does not contradict any annotations, though it adds no further behavioral context like auth or rate limits, which are likely unnecessary.
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?
One concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the covered items. No wasted words.
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?
Given the simple nature of a describe tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It enumerates the metadata categories and the title resolves the MISO specificity. It does not explicitly connect to the query tool, but that is not required for a describe operation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description's role is minimal. The baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly lists the metadata categories rather than attempting to document nonexistent parameters.
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 the specific verb 'Describe' with a clear resource ('power.interconnection_queue') and enumerates the exact types of information it provides (filters, groupings, metrics, detail fields, citation fields). The title distinguishes this as the MISO-specific describe tool, differentiating it from regional siblings.
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?
The description implies its usage: it provides metadata needed before querying the dataset. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the other regional describe tools, nor does it reference the corresponding query tool. The title adds regional context but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each capability has a clearly named describe/query pair, and domains like power, AI infrastructure, robotics, and space are distinct. The generic describe_capability_v1/query_capability_v1 could be confused with the named variants, and the many ISO-specific interconnection queues share similar names, but descriptions explicitly disambiguate them.
All tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern: describe_<capability>_v1 and query_<capability>_v1, with a few utility tools like list_capabilities_v1 and get_source_evidence_v1. There is no mixing of conventions.
At 62 tools, the set is far too large for typical server scope. The describe/query pairs inflate the count even though each is justified, and the generic capabilities plus per-ISO variants make it feel heavy and hard to navigate.
The server covers each domain thoroughly with describe, query, and evidence verification, plus generic fallbacks for capabilities not yet in the client's tool list. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no county/state attribution for some data, no load types in ISO queues) but they are explicitly documented and workable.