Skip to main content
Glama

Pvgis

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Pv Performance

pv_performance
Read-onlyIdempotent

Model annual + monthly PV system output. Returns kWh/year estimates and monthly breakdowns.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lossNoSystem losses (%) — default 14
angleNoTilt angle in degrees from horizontal. Default 35.
aspectNoAzimuth: 0=south, 90=west, -90=east, 180=north. Default 0.
latitudeYesLatitude in degrees
longitudeYesLongitude in degrees
peakpowerNoNominal peak power (kWp). Default 1.
pvtechchoiceNocrystSi | CIS | CdTe | Unknown. Default crystSi.
mountingplaceNofree | building (BIPV). Default free.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputsNoInput parameters echoed back
outputsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "angle": 35,
+    "aspect": 0,
+    "latitude": 40.7128,
+    "longitude": -74.006,
+    "loss": 14,
+    "peakpower": 5,
+    "pvtechchoice": "crystSi"
+  },
+  {
+    "latitude": 51.5074,
+    "longitude": -0.1278,
+    "mountingplace": "building",
+    "peakpower": 10
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "inputs": {
+      "description": "Input parameters echoed back",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "outputs": {
+      "properties": {
+        "fixed": {
+          "properties": {
+            "E_month": {
+              "description": "Monthly energy output in kWh (12 values)",
+              "items": {
+                "type": "number"
+              },
+              "type": "array"
+            },
+            "E_year": {
+              "description": "Annual energy output in kWh",
+              "type": "number"
+            }
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds minimal context by stating the tool 'models' and 'returns' output, which is consistent with annotations. No contradiction noted. However, it could mention that the tool does not modify any data or have side effects, but the annotations suffice.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and output. No extraneous information is included.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has 8 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal but covers the fundamental purpose and return format. It could provide more context about the modeling methodology or system parameters, but the output schema compensates for missing return details. Overall adequate for a straightforward read-only modeling tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 8 parameters already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameters, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool models annual and monthly PV system output, returning kWh/year estimates and monthly breakdowns. The verb 'Model' and resource 'PV system output' are specific, and it implicitly distinguishes from siblings like monthly_radiation and tmy by focusing on output rather than radiation or typical weather.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention when to choose this over sibling tools like monthly_radiation or tmy, nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for use.

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

All Pvgis toolsInspect
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