solar-home-incentives
Server Details
Free solar & home energy tools: estimates, incentives by ZIP, scores, installer routing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of solar home incentives: incentives info, production estimation, property energy score, and lead routing. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern in snake_case: check_incentives, estimate_production, get_node_score, route_lead. Consistent and predictable.
Four tools cover the core workflow: information (incentives, production), assessment (score), and action (lead routing). Scope is well-defined without unnecessary extras.
The tool set covers essential user needs for solar incentives, but lacks a tool for detailed incentive comparison or installer tracking. However, the lead routing and score tools mitigate major gaps.
Available Tools
4 toolscheck_incentivesAInspect
Current US clean-energy incentive guidance (federal status + state/utility programs via DSIRE) for a ZIP code. Use whenever a user asks what rebates, tax credits, or utility programs apply to solar, batteries, heat pumps, or efficiency work at an address. [free — no API key required]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zipCode | Yes | 5-digit US ZIP code of the property. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the guidance includes federal, state, and utility programs via DSIRE, and that it is free with no API key required. It does not cover rate limits or data freshness in detail, but is mostly transparent.
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?
Two sentences front-load the purpose and scope, with zero wasted words. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines the tool, second gives usage context and a note about free access.
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 required parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data source, and usage context. It could briefly mention the format of the response, but is otherwise complete.
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% with a single parameter 'zipCode' described as '5-digit US ZIP code of the property.' The description adds no further detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 uses specific verbs ('check', 'guidance') and clearly identifies the resource ('US clean-energy incentive guidance for a ZIP code'). It distinguishes itself from siblings (estimate_production, get_node_score, route_lead) by focusing on incentives.
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?
Explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever a user asks what rebates, tax credits, or utility programs apply...' Also notes that it is free and requires no API key, which helps the agent decide when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
estimate_productionAInspect
Honest-range annual solar production estimate (kWh/year ± band, with assumptions) for a ZIP code, from either a proposed system size (kW) or a monthly bill. Use to sanity-check installer quotes or size a system before talking to anyone. [free — no API key required]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zipCode | Yes | 5-digit US ZIP code of the property. | |
| systemKw | No | Proposed solar system size in kW-DC. Omit to have a size recommended from the bill. | |
| monthlyBillUsd | No | Average monthly electric bill in USD (used to size a system when systemKw is omitted). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'honest-range' and 'with assumptions' and that it's free, but doesn't disclose accuracy, data sources, or limitations beyond that. Basic transparency but could be more detailed.
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?
Two sentences with essential information. No fluff, but could be slightly more structured. Still good conciseness.
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?
No output schema, so description hints at return value (kWh/year ± band). For a 3-param tool, it adequately describes inputs and output. Misses details like band width or assumptions, but overall sufficient.
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%, so baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that systemKw and monthlyBillUsd are alternatives (either provide size or bill to size system). This clarifies parameter relationship.
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 tool estimates annual solar production (kWh/year ± band) based on ZIP code and either system size or monthly bill. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_incentives or get_node_score by focusing on production estimation.
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 description explains when to use the tool: 'to sanity-check installer quotes or size a system before talking to anyone.' It also notes it's free and no API key required. Not explicitly stating when not to use or alternatives, but sibling tools are clearly different.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_node_scoreAInspect
Instant Energy Node Score (0–100 across 7 axes: efficiency, electrification, renewable generation, storage/resilience, financial optimization, carbon, market readiness) plus the single highest-leverage next action, from whatever property facts you have. More inputs → tighter score. [free — no API key required]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| evType | No | e.g. own_ev | plan_ev | no_ev | |
| roofAge | No | e.g. lt_5 | 5_15 | gt_15 | unknown | |
| zipCode | Yes | 5-digit US ZIP code of the property. | |
| backupNeed | No | e.g. whole_home | essentials | none | |
| heatingFuel | No | e.g. natural_gas | oil | propane | electric_resistance | heat_pump | wood | other | |
| serviceType | No | Primary interest: solar | battery | ev_charger | efficiency | heat_pump | unsure | |
| propertyType | No | single_family | townhouse | condo | mobile_home | multi_family | commercial | farm | other | |
| outageConcern | No | rare | occasional | frequent | severe | |
| monthlyBillUsd | No | Alternative to monthlyBillRange: average monthly bill in USD. | |
| monthlyBillRange | No | lt_75 | 75_150 | 150_250 | 250_400 | gt_400 | unknown | |
| electricalPanelSize | No | e.g. lt_100 | 100_200 | gt_200 | unknown |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must provide behavioral detail. It explains the output (score and next action), the input flexibility ('from whatever property facts you have'), and the free nature. It does not detail rate limits, data usage, or limitations when inputs are minimal, but for a scoring tool this is adequate.
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?
Two sentences convey the output, axes, input relationship, and pricing. No redundant words. Front-loaded with key purpose. Highly efficient and scannable.
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?
Given no output schema, the description explains the return format (score and next action). For a tool with many optional inputs, it covers the high-level concept well. Could specify return format structure, but overall sufficient for an agent.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all 11 parameters, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the tool description does not enhance parameter understanding.
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 tool computes an 'Energy Node Score' on a 0-100 scale across 7 defined axes and provides a highest-leverage next action. This distinguishes it from siblings (check_incentives, estimate_production, route_lead) which focus on different aspects.
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 description implies usage when property facts are available and notes that more inputs yield a tighter score. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the 'instant' and 'free' indicators help the agent decide. Sibling tools cover distinct operations, so context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
route_leadAInspect
Submit a consented homeowner project and EnergyAI’s autonomous agent finds, vets, and routes a real local installer to them — free to you and the homeowner. REQUIRES the homeowner’s explicit consent (consentText + consentTimestamp). Returns a leadId you can quote back to the user. [free — no API key required]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| state | No | Two-letter state code. Derived from ZIP when omitted. | |
| zipCode | Yes | 5-digit US ZIP code of the project. | |
| timeline | No | e.g. asap | 3_months | 6_months | exploring | |
| budgetRange | No | ||
| consentText | Yes | EXACT consent text shown to and accepted by the homeowner. Fetch the canonical text from the tool result of check_incentives or use your own — alternate text REQUIRES consentVersion. | |
| contactName | Yes | Homeowner's name. | |
| contactEmail | Yes | Homeowner's email. | |
| contactPhone | No | ||
| propertyType | No | ||
| consentVersion | No | Required when consentText is not the canonical EnergyAI consent text. | |
| consentTimestamp | Yes | When the homeowner consented. | |
| monthlyBillRange | No | lt_75 | 75_150 | 150_250 | 250_400 | gt_400 | unknown | |
| contractorCategory | Yes | solar_installation | battery_storage | ev_charger | energy_audit | insulation_weatherization | heat_pump |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses the consent requirement, return of leadId, and that the agent routes to an installer. However, it lacks details on error handling, side effects, or behavior if consent is missing.
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?
Three concise sentences, front-loading purpose, critical requirement, and return info. No unnecessary words or phrases.
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?
Given 14 parameters, 6 required, and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, consent requirement, and return value. Some behavioral details (e.g., validation) are missing, but it adequately supports agent 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 71% with most parameters described. The description adds value by emphasizing the critical consent parameters and the leadId return, but does not elaborate on other parameters.
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 resource 'consented homeowner project', and explains the agent's role in finding, vetting, and routing an installer. It distinguishes from siblings (check_incentives, estimate_production, get_node_score) which serve 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?
The description explicitly requires homeowner consent (consentText + consentTimestamp) and notes it's free with no API key. It implies use when needing to connect a homeowner to an installer, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!