query_power_capacity_accreditation_miso_v1Query cited MISO Schedule 53 class-average and indicative-DLOL seasonal accreditation ratios, including published unit counts, storage variants, and explicit suppression atoms.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds content details ('cited', 'storage variants', 'suppression atoms') but does not disclose response format, pagination, or citation behavior. This is acceptable given annotation coverage but lacks deeper behavioral context.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently names the verb and resource without redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple query tool, though the jargon ('suppression atoms') could be clearer.
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?
With an opaque params object, no parameter schema, and no usage guidance, the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It describes the data content but not how to query it or when to choose it over siblings. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the invocation gap remains.
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 input schema defines only a free-form 'params' object with additionalProperties:true and no specific properties; schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain how to pass query parameters or what filters are available (e.g., date, season, unit type), leaving the agent with no guidance on how to construct a valid call.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Query'), a specific resource ('MISO Schedule 53 class-average and indicative-DLOL seasonal accreditation ratios'), and distinguishes it from siblings like query_power_capacity_accreditation_pjm_v1 and describe_* tools by naming the MISO-specific data and its components.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, alternative tools, or context like 'use this for raw data' vs 'describe' tools. The query/describe distinction is only implied by naming, not stated.
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.