SiteCheck Trade & Energy

US nuclear power reactor status from the US Nuclear

energy_nuclear_reactor_status_pris

Read-only

US nuclear power reactor status from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's daily Power Reactor Status Report: each unit's power level (% of rated) on the latest report day and the day before, with counts of units at full power, reduced and offline (refueling or outage). US units only (about 94); worldwide IAEA PRIS data is not included. Filter by part of the unit name. Related tools on this server, for a different need: energy_ercot_texas_grid_status when you need Live Texas grid status from ERCOT's public dashboards. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

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": "energy_nuclear_reactor_status_pris"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No	Optional: part of a unit name, e.g. Vogtle or Diablo

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world tool, so the description is not required to carry the safety profile. It still adds useful context: the data is a daily snapshot including the previous day, the universe is about 94 US units, and calls are metered at $0.002 in USDC per successful call with failures uncharged. The cost and partial-failure behavior in particular go beyond what the annotations say.

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 front-loaded with what the tool returns and what its scope is, followed by the exclusion and the alternative tool. The payment and pricing sentence is longer boilerplate than this particular tool needs, but it is still information relevant to calling the tool, and nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and annotations, the description supplies the scope, coverage, filter behavior, cost, and an alternative tool. The main gap is that it doesn't mention freshness guarantees, such as when the daily report is published or how much lag there is, which would matter for an operational grid-status query.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents the single optional parameter with an example, and the description only repeats the idea that the filter is on part of a unit name. That is marginally useful, since it confirms the match is a partial or substring match, but it adds little beyond the structured data. With 100% schema description coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific resource (US NRC daily Power Reactor Status Report), the exact metrics returned (per-unit power level as % of rated for the latest day and the prior day, plus counts at full power/reduced/offline), and the geographic scope (~94 US units). It also explicitly excludes the worldwide IAEA PRIS dataset, so the tool is distinguishable from anything else on the server.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear guidance on scope (US units only, worldwide data not included) and points to a sibling tool, energy_ercot_texas_grid_status, for a different need. It also explains that a partial unit-name filter is supported. What's missing is an explicit when-not-to-use case beyond the geographical exclusion, e.g. where to go for historical or non-US reactor data.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SiteCheck Trade & Energy tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?