Use a completed assessment to prioritize property-specific incentive checks and return an evidence-based verification plan. [$0.02/call]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assessmentId | Yes | Completed EnergyAI assessment id. Use free check_incentives for ZIP-only guidance. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral context. It adds a cost note ($0.02/call) and prerequisite of a completed assessment, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, side-effect-free, or if any permissions are needed. This is partial disclosure but not complete.
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 that states the action and output, followed by a brief cost note. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, prerequisite, and what the user receives. The return value ('evidence-based verification plan') is somewhat vague but sufficient given the tool's simplicity. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is well-documented. The main description reinforces the meaning ('completed assessment') but adds no extra semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly specifies the action ('prioritize property-specific incentive checks') and the resource ('completed assessment') and output ('evidence-based verification plan'). It distinguishes from sibling tool check_incentives by emphasizing property-specific vs ZIP-only guidance, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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?
The main description implies usage with a completed assessment, but the schema's parameter description explicitly directs users to check_incentives for ZIP-only guidance, providing an alternative. This gives clear context on when to use this tool vs a related sibling, though it is not in the main description.
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.
Several tools overlap heavily: get_node_score vs get_energy_node_score, find_local_installers vs match_installers, and route_lead vs submit_contractor_match_request are easy to confuse. The descriptions clarify details, but an agent would often need to inspect arguments to know which installer, incentive, or recommendation tool is the right one.
All tool names use snake_case with a verb-leading style, which provides a consistent backbone. However, domain naming is inconsistent: the same concept appears as node vs energy_node, installer vs contractor, and incentive discovery is split across check_incentives, get_energy_incentives, list_guides, and get_guide without a predictable pattern.
29 tools is too many for a single MCP server, especially since several fall into overlapping installer/lead, incentive, recommendation, and commercial-power categories. Many tools appear to be monetization gates or handoff variants that could reasonably be consolidated.
The set covers core user journeys: assessment creation/answering/completion, incentive guidance, installer discovery and routing, quote review, and commercial power screens. However, there are notable gaps in state management, such as no way to list or retrieve existing assessments/leads, and several checkout or handoff tools have no follow-up/status tool.