osint

Query Power Interconnection Queue (ERCOT)

query_power_interconnection_queue_ercot_v1

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query the ERCOT generator interconnection queue — ERCOT's public GIS Report (EMIL PG7-200-ER), the waiting line of generation projects that have REQUESTED to connect to the ERCOT (Texas) grid.

Returns cited, project-level records with ERCOT's full published structure across four lifecycle sheets (Large Gen + Small Gen = active; Inactive Projects; Cancellation Update): the requested capacity_mw (ERCOT publishes ONE capacity figure — no summer/winter split), the ERCOT fuel and technology codes (e.g. SOL/PV solar, OTH/BA battery, GAS/CC combined-cycle, WIN/WT wind — HYD is HYDROGEN, hydro is WAT), the cdr_reporting_zone (NORTH/SOUTH/WEST/COASTAL/HOUSTON/PANHANDLE), the interconnecting_entity, the poi_location, the composite gim_study_phase token string, and the milestone dates (screening_study_started, fis_approved, ia_signed, construction_start/construction_end, approved_for_energization/approved_for_synchronization, projected_cod). Group or filter by application_status, size_category, fuel, technology, cdr_reporting_zone, county_fips, state, gim_study_phase, or interconnecting_entity; filter projected_cod by the projected_cod_from / projected_cod_to range. Pass each parameter as a top-level key of params (flat — not nested). Example: {"application_status": "ACTIVE", "fuel": "SOL"} for active solar requests; {"application_status": "ACTIVE", "group_by": ["fuel"], "order_by": "capacity_mw", "top_n": 5} for the active pipeline's biggest fuels by requested MW. The GIS Report is published MONTHLY and its full history is queryable — this is NOT a single point-in-time snapshot. Omit as_of for the latest month, or pass as_of (a date) to get the queue as it stood at a past month: as_of resolves to the newest monthly snapshot at or before it, with vintages back to 2018-12 (the floor; an earlier as_of is refused, naming the floor). Example: {"application_status": "ACTIVE", "as_of": "2019-06-30"} returns the active queue as of mid-2019. Each month is a full point-in-time snapshot (a project that has since withdrawn is simply absent from later months — query the earlier as_of to see it), so a multi-month trend is one query per month; as_of is the history axis, not a row filter. 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.

capacity_mw is REQUESTED capacity, not built: historically the large majority of queued megawatts withdraw before they are built. NEVER read a queue-MW total as installed or operating capacity — it is additive across distinct rows but is a REQUESTED total only. ERCOT prints NO status column, so application_status is derived from the sheet ERCOT files the project on: ACTIVE is the live pipeline (Large/Small Gen), INACTIVE and CANCELLED are projects that recently left the queue (the Inactive / Cancellation sheets list RECENT departures, NOT the full historical withdrawn set). The build-progress reading is carried SEPARATELY in gim_study_phase (e.g. "SS Completed, FIS Completed, IA") + the milestone dates and is never collapsed into application_status. For built/operating capacity use query_power_capacity_v1.

ERCOT 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 CAISO (California) queue use query_power_interconnection_queue_caiso_v1; 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 SPP (central US) queue use query_power_interconnection_queue_spp_v1. This tool serves ERCOT's GIS Report, which is GENERATION-only; ERCOT's separate large-load / data-center interconnection queue is an unstructured source (TAC-meeting PDF slides) and is NOT served here, and this tool does not infer which projects are data-center-driven — that interpretation is the analyst's, from cited rows.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, the description adds crucial non-obvious behaviors: capacity_mw is requested (not installed), monthly snapshots with as_of floor at 2018-12, application_status derived from sheet membership, and that inactive/cancelled lists are not exhaustive. It also explains that earlier as_of before the floor is refused, which is beyond structured fields.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long, but it is organized into clear thematic paragraphs (returns, parameters, history, capacity caveat, status derivation, alternatives) and starts with the core purpose. While some redundancy exists (e.g., repeated emphasis on requested capacity and monthly publication), the length is justified by the tool's complexity and the need to prevent misuse.

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?

The description covers all essential operational aspects: return format, citations, group/filter parameters, time-travel semantics, error conditions (floor refusal), and proper interpretation of queue MWs. With an output schema present, it need not enumerate every return field, but it does provide enough domain context to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 only exposes `params` as an untyped object with zero documentation. The description compensates thoroughly by documenting accepted top-level keys (application_status, fuel, technology, group_by, order_by, top_n, as_of, include_records, etc.) and providing concrete JSON examples for active solar and grouped fuel capacity. This fully bridges the schema's 0% coverage.

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 begins with 'Query the ERCOT generator interconnection queue' and specifically identifies the ERCOT GIS Report (EMIL PG7-200-ER), clearly distinguishing it from sibling ISO queue tools. It uses a precise verb and resource, with no ambiguity about what data is returned.

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?

The description explicitly names alternatives for each ISO (e.g., 'For MISO use query_power_interconnection_queue_v1; for PJM ...'), and directs users to query_power_capacity_v1 for built/operating capacity. It also states what the tool does NOT serve (large-load queue, data-center inference), providing clear 'when-to-use' guidance.

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

All osint tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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

Need Help?