query_power_capacity_accreditation_pjm_v1Query cited PJM marginal ELCC class ratings by document kind, auction, delivery year, and resource class. Preliminary, final, and incremental-auction documents remain separate; no value is preferred or reconciled.
| 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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat those. It adds valuable context about document separation and lack of reconciliation, which is not captured by the annotations and materially affects how results should be interpreted.
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?
Two concise, well-structured sentences. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a critical caveat without unnecessary filler.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so the description correctly focuses on query dimensions and behavioral caveats. It covers the key facets and the non-reconciliation nuance. The 'internal' qualifier from the title is not carried into the description, and usage alternatives are not addressed, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a query tool with strong annotations.
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 is a generic 'params' object with no property descriptions and 0% schema coverage, so the description carries the burden. It names four meaningful filtering dimensions (document kind, auction, delivery year, resource class), which gives the agent concrete guidance on what to pass. It stops short of defining parameter names or required/optional status, but this is adequate for a flexible query tool.
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 the tool queries cited PJM marginal ELCC class ratings, with specific filtering dimensions (document kind, auction, delivery year, resource class). This distinguishes it from sibling describe_ and query_ tools by naming a unique resource and operation.
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 usage context through the caveat that preliminary, final, and incremental-auction documents remain separate and unreconciled, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the sibling describe_power_capacity_accreditation_pjm_v1 or other query tools. No alternatives are named.
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.