actual_loadMeasured electricity consumption per hour for a bidding zone (MW).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | Yes | Bidding-zone EIC code | |
| period_end | Yes | ||
| period_start | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Query parameters sent to ENTSO-E API | |
| time_series | Yes | Array of time series data | |
| time_series_count | Yes | Number of time series returned |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "area": "10YDE-VE-------2",
- "period_end": "202401012300",
- "period_start": "202401010000"
- },
- {
- "area": "10YGB-NGET-----L",
- "period_end": "202412072300",
- "period_start": "202412010000"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "area": "10YDE-VE-------2",
+ "period_end": "202504012300",
+ "period_start": "202504010000"
+ },
+ {
+ "area": "10YGB-NGET-----L",
+ "period_end": "202412072300",
+ "period_start": "202412010000"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "area": "10YDE-VE-------2",
+ "period_end": "202401012300",
+ "period_start": "202401010000"
+ },
+ {
+ "area": "10YGB-NGET-----L",
+ "period_end": "202412072300",
+ "period_start": "202412010000"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "query": {
+ "description": "Query parameters sent to ENTSO-E API",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "time_series": {
+ "description": "Array of time series data",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "business_type": {
+ "description": "Business type classification",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "in_domain": {
+ "description": "Inbound domain EIC code",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "mrid": {
+ "description": "Market Resource ID",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "out_domain": {
+ "description": "Outbound domain EIC code",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "periods": {
+ "description": "Time periods with data points",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "period_end": {
+ "description": "Period end timestamp (ISO 8601)",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "period_start": {
+ "description": "Period start timestamp (ISO 8601)",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "points": {
+ "description": "Data points with position and load value",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "position": {
+ "description": "Position/index in period",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "description": "Load consumption in MW",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "position",
+ "value"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "resolution": {
+ "description": "Time resolution (e.g., PT60M for hourly)",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "psr_type": {
+ "description": "Production source resource type",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "time_series_count": {
+ "description": "Number of time series returned",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "query",
+ "time_series_count",
+ "time_series"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only tool. The description adds that the data is 'measured' consumption per hour, reinforcing the non-mutating nature. No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence of 11 words conveys the tool's essence with no redundant information. Every word serves the purpose.
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 the availability of an output schema and clean annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the data is historical or real-time, but the core information is present.
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?
Only 33% of parameters have schema descriptions (area). The description does not clarify the format for period_start and period_end, which are dates/times (examples show YYYYMMDDHHmm). It mentions 'per hour' but does not explain expected string formats or behavior.
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?
Description clearly states it provides measured electricity consumption per hour for a bidding zone in MW. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like actual_generation_per_type (generation) and cross_border_flow (flows).
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of alternatives (e.g., use actual_generation_per_type for generation data). Usage context is implied but not stated.
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.