query_power_capacity_market_miso_v1Query cited MISO Planning Resource Auction seasonal zonal ACP, verbatim ERZ values, published CONE parameters, and IMM conduct thresholds.
| 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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context about data provenance and scope with words like 'cited', 'verbatim', and 'published'. No contradiction with annotations is present.
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 with no filler. It efficiently communicates the action, resource, and key data categories, earning every word's place despite heavy use of acronyms.
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 output schema exists and annotations are strong, but the tool's domain complexity (MISO capacity market, seasonal and zonal dimensions) and the complete lack of parameter guidance make the description insufficient for targeted invocation. The listed data elements help establish scope but omit how to select time periods or zones.
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 exposes only a generic 'params' object with additionalProperties=true and zero property descriptions; schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain how to specify query filters for ACP, ERZ values, CONE parameters, or IMM thresholds, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct a valid request.
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 'Query' and clearly names the resource: MISO Planning Resource Auction results. It enumerates distinct data elements (seasonal zonal ACP, verbatim ERZ values, published CONE parameters, IMM conduct thresholds), which sharply distinguishes it from sibling describe_* tools and other query tools.
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?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling describe_power_capacity_market_miso_v1 or query_power_capacity_market_pjm_v1. The 'Query' verb and tool name imply it is for retrieving actual data rather than metadata, but no alternatives or exclusions are 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.