osint

Query Power Interconnection Queue (PJM cluster/cycle)

query_power_interconnection_queue_pjm_cycle_v1

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query PJM's cluster/cycle service-request grid — the cluster view of PJM's interconnection process: the TC1/TC2 transition cycles (re-processing the pre-Order-2023 serial backlog) and the reopened steady-state cycles (C01+, the new intake). A SEPARATE PJM publication from the full New Services queue (query_power_interconnection_queue_pjm_v1) — richer per-project cluster detail; the two share rows and are never combined.

Returns cited, project-level records with PJM's full cluster schema: the cluster cycle (TC1 / TC2 / C01 …) and stage (phase / decision point), the developer, requested megawatts (requested_max_output_mw = MFO, requested_summer_mw, requested_winter_mw), the realized built in_service_mw, long-term-firm transmission ltf_mw, location (state, county, derived county_fips), fuel and project_type as PJM reports them, the single status, and the phased System-Impact-Study report URLs + statuses. Group or filter by cycle, stage, status, state, county_fips, project_type, capacity_or_energy, fuel, developer, transmission_owner, or (group only) is_hybrid; filter submitted_date by range. Pass each parameter as a top-level key of params (flat). Example: {"cycle": "C01", "status": "Active"} for the live reopened-cycle pipeline; {"group_by": ["cycle"]} for counts by cluster cycle. 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.

The requested_* figures are REQUESTED capacity, not built: historically the large majority of queued megawatts withdraw before they are built. NEVER read a requested-MW total as installed/operating capacity — additive across distinct projects but a REQUESTED total only. PJM also reports in_service_mw (the realized built MW). For built/operating capacity use query_power_capacity_v1.

PJM cluster grid only. This and PJM's New Services queue (query_power_interconnection_queue_pjm_v1) are different publications that share rows — never summed or compared across them; never across ISOs (the MISO queue is query_power_interconnection_queue_v1; the CAISO queue is query_power_interconnection_queue_caiso_v1; the NYISO queue is query_power_interconnection_queue_nyiso_v1; the ISO-NE queue is query_power_interconnection_queue_isone_v1; the ERCOT queue is query_power_interconnection_queue_ercot_v1; the SPP queue is query_power_interconnection_queue_spp_v1). PJM reports no data-center / load type, and this tool does not infer one.

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?

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent; the description goes further to explain return format (cited records, source_row), the meaning of requested_* as non-built values, and that no data-center type is inferred. It adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 information-dense, with clear structure and front-loaded purpose. Minor repetition of the 'never combine' warning slightly pads length, but the level of detail is appropriate for a complex tool.

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 minimal schema and complex domain, the description covers return values, source verification, aggregation, filtering, grouping, and caveats. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema has only a generic 'params' object with no descriptions; the description compensates by enumerating all filterable fields, grouping options, and providing concrete examples. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter details.

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 specifies a distinct resource: PJM's cluster/cycle service-request grid, distinguishing it from the full New Services queue and other ISO queues. It clearly states the tool's action, scope, and relationship to sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly names when to use this tool vs alternatives: states it is a separate publication from query_power_interconnection_queue_pjm_v1, warns against summing across ISOs, and directs to query_power_capacity_v1 for built capacity. Also provides examples of valid queries.

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?