GB grid carbon intensity in gCO2/kWh: actual and forecast now, the next 6 hours, and the regional generation mix.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "grid_carbon"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | GB for national, or a NESO region id 1 to 17 (13 = London) | GB |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope details (units, 6-hour forecast window, regional mix) but says nothing about update cadence, whether an API key is required (a create_free_api_key sibling exists), or forecast refresh frequency.
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?
One front-loaded sentence packs the metric, unit, time horizons, and regional dimension with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
With no output schema, the description does the right work by naming the three return components (actual, forecast, generation mix). Only minor gaps remain, such as forecast granularity and update cadence, which for a single-parameter read tool are not blocking.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single region parameter is fully documented in-schema, including the NESO id range and the 13=London example. The description reinforces regional scope via 'regional generation mix' but adds no syntax or default behavior beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific resource (GB grid carbon intensity), a unit (gCO2/kWh), and concrete horizons (actual now, forecast next 6 hours, regional generation mix). It is clearly distinct from generic siblings like grid_load or grid_price, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings to sharpen the contrast.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. An agent must infer from the returned horizons (now / next 6h) that this is the near-term carbon-intensity tool, rather than being told so.
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.