Skip to main content
Glama

Query Power Interconnection Queue (CAISO)

query_power_interconnection_queue_caiso_v1
Read-onlyIdempotent

Query the CAISO generator interconnection queue — California ISO's public Public Queue Report, the waiting line of projects that have REQUESTED to connect to the CAISO grid (California, plus the out-of-state edges it studies: NV, AZ).

Returns cited, project-level records with CAISO's full published structure: the net megawatts to grid (net_mw_to_grid, CAISO's own headline figure) and the per-component Type/Fuel/MW triplets for hybrids (type_1..3, fuel_1..3, mw_1..3, plus an is_hybrid flag), the as-reported application_status, the cluster study_process (C01..C14, plus serial/legacy tracks), the three-valued deliverability status (deliverability_status = Full Capacity / Partial Capacity / Energy Only) with tpd_allocation_percentage / tpd_allocation_group / offpeak_deliverability, location (state, county, derived county_fips, utility, pto_study_region), the per-phase study statuses, and lifecycle dates (ir_receive_date, queue_date, proposed_online_date, current_online_date, and — for completed projects — actual_online_date). Group or filter by application_status, state, county_fips, deliverability_status, study_process, fuel_1, type_1, utility, pto_study_region, offpeak_deliverability, tpd_allocation_group, suspension_status, ia_status, or (group only) is_hybrid; filter queue_date by the queue_date_from / queue_date_to range. Pass each parameter as a top-level key of params (flat — not nested). Example: {"application_status": "ACTIVE", "fuel_1": "Battery", "state": "CA"} for active battery requests in California; {"group_by": ["application_status"]} for net MW and project counts by status; {"application_status": "ACTIVE", "group_by": ["deliverability_status"]} for the active pipeline split by deliverability. Returns JSON aggregates with citations and optional row-level records when include_records is true; every value carries source, as_of, and a source_row verifiable with get_source_evidence_v1.

net_mw_to_grid is REQUESTED capacity, not built: historically the large majority of queued megawatts withdraw before they are built, so the report is withdrawn-dominated. NEVER read a queue-MW total as installed or operating capacity — it is additive across distinct projects but is a REQUESTED total only. Scope by application_status: ACTIVE is the live pipeline, COMPLETED is built and in service (and carries an actual_online_date), WITHDRAWN left the queue. CAISO publishes no separate built-MW column — net_mw_to_grid is served under CAISO's own name and never relabeled or duplicated as a built figure. For built/operating capacity use query_power_capacity_v1.

CAISO only — never summed, deduped, or compared across ISOs. For the MISO interconnection queue use query_power_interconnection_queue_v1; for PJM use query_power_interconnection_queue_pjm_v1 (or query_power_interconnection_queue_pjm_cycle_v1 for PJM's cluster/cycle grid); for the NYISO (New York) queue use query_power_interconnection_queue_nyiso_v1; for the ISO-NE (New England) queue use query_power_interconnection_queue_isone_v1; for the ERCOT (Texas) queue use query_power_interconnection_queue_ercot_v1; for the SPP (central US) queue use query_power_interconnection_queue_spp_v1. This tool serves CAISO's Public Queue Report (Cluster 14 and prior, plus the serial/legacy tracks); CAISO's separate current-cluster intake file is a distinct publication and is not served here. CAISO reports no data-center / load type, and this tool does not infer one — that interpretation is the analyst's, from cited rows.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, but description adds crucial behavioral context: net_mw_to_grid is REQUESTED capacity, not built; withdrawn-dominated; no built-MW column exists; never relabel as built. Also discloses citation behavior (source, as_of, source_row) and that no data-center type is inferred. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence adds necessary value for a complex tool with a generic schema. It is front-loaded with purpose, then details fields, warnings, and alternatives, with no redundancy. The structure is logical and scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity and sparse schema, the description is complete: it covers return structure, grouping/filtering, citation verification, capacity semantics, ISO scope, and exclusions. Even with an output schema present, it adds valuable caveats (requested vs built) that are not inferable from schemas.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is a generic free-form object with 0% coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It exhaustively lists filterable fields, grouping options, the flat-params requirement, and provides concrete examples. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('CAISO generator interconnection queue'), and explicitly names the ISO and geographic scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming alternative ISO queues (MISO, PJM, NYISO, etc.) and the capacity tool (query_power_capacity_v1).

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?

Provides extensive when-to-use guidance: CAISO-only, not for cross-ISO comparison, use query_power_capacity_v1 for built capacity, and enumerates sibling tools for other ISOs. Also explains scope by application_status (ACTIVE, COMPLETED, WITHDRAWN) and notes exclusions (e.g., current-cluster intake file, data-center type).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources