England & Wales Minimum Energy Efficiency Standard (MEES) check for private rented property. Tests against the in-force EPC E minimum (domestic and non-domestic) and surfaces the PROPOSED (not yet law) EPC C / 2030 uplift as an advisory only. Returns compliance, can-let, cost cap and penalties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| property_type | Yes | ||
| current_epc_band | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses what is tested, what is advisory, and what outputs the user receives (compliance, can-let, cost cap, penalties). This gives an agent a clear expectation of behavior beyond the simple tool name.
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 three tightly packed sentences with no filler. Jurisdiction and subject are front-loaded, the in-force vs proposed distinction is explicit, and return categories are listed at the end. Every sentence contributes information.
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 two-parameter checker with no output schema, the description covers the regulation, jurisdiction, property scope, test threshold, advisory uplift, and output categories. It does not detail the exact result format, but that is not essential for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: property_type is tied to 'domestic and non-domestic', and current_epc_band is framed by the EPC E minimum and EPC C/2030 uplift, adding regulatory meaning that bare enum values lack.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'MEES check for private rented property' in England & Wales. It then pinpoints the exact regulatory test (in-force EPC E minimum) and the advisory EPC C/2030 uplift, clearly differentiating this from the many other EU/UAE/UK tools in the sibling list.
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 intended use is clear from the scope ('England & Wales', 'private rented property', 'MEES check'), and the description explicitly warns that the EPC C element is 'not yet law' and 'advisory only', which prevents misuse. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, but no sibling tool appears to cover the same MEES check.
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.
Many tools have distinct domains (structural, carbon, compliance, heat pumps), but several overlap at a surface level: calculate_carbon, building_carbon_footprint, and uae_climate_ghg all deal with carbon; estimate_cooling_load and thermal_load both compute cooling loads; and multiple UK/UAE compliance checkers have similar 'readiness/checker/precheck' names. Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent could still select the wrong tool without careful reading.
Naming is a mix of verb-led patterns (assess_epbd_score, calculate_carbon, check_uae_bim_compliance, estimate_cooling_load, get_technical_dd_quote) and noun-led phrases (building_carbon_footprint, building_readiness, digital_renovation_passport, roi_calculator, thermal_load). Sub-groups like check_* and eurocode_* are consistent internally, but the overall set has no unifying convention, which adds cognitive load.
With 27 tools, the server exceeds the 'heavy' range, even though the engineering domain is broad. Many tools are highly specialized (e.g., part_s_ev, mees_checker, dgnb_bim_readiness), and the large count risks overwhelming an agent trying to pick the right one. The scope may justify the number, but it edges into too-many territory.
The server covers a wide range of building and sustainability assessments: carbon, energy, compliance (EU/UK/UAE), structural design, cost benchmarking, and data centres. However, there are gaps in adjacent areas common to building engineering—such as acoustic design, water/sanitation, electrical systems, or thermal bridging—which would be expected from a general 'engineering' server. It is reasonably complete for its apparent sustainability/regulatory focus, but not universally.
