Submit a consented installer lead and retain referral attribution. Free. [free]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| consentText | Yes | EXACT consent text shown to end user. | |
| contactName | Yes | ||
| assessmentId | Yes | ||
| contactEmail | Yes | ||
| contactPhone | No | ||
| consentVersion | No | ||
| consentTimestamp | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool submits a lead and retains referral attribution, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or any other behavioral traits. The term 'consented' hints at consent handling, but this is vague.
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 very short and gets to the point quickly. However, the appended 'Free. [free]' adds noise and does not earn its place. The main statement is concise but the extra tag is unnecessary.
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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too sparse. It fails to provide enough context about the submission process, required consent details, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and correct invocation.
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 very low (14%), with only consentText having a description. The tool description does not explain any of the seven parameters, nor does it clarify how fields like assessmentId, contactName, or consentTimestamp are used. The word 'consented' is too weak to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 states the verb 'submit' and the object 'a consented installer lead', with the additional outcome 'retain referral attribution'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like match_installers or route_lead, which have different purposes.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as match_installers or route_lead. The only implied hint is 'consented', but there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when it is appropriate to choose this tool.
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.