Skip to main content
Glama

engineering

by tech.novtriq

sap_sbem_precheck

UK SAP 10.3 / SBEM EPC precheck. Maps a known SAP rating (1-100) to its EPC band, and/or computes annual CO2 and primary energy from fuel consumption using validated SAP 10 fuel factors. The official EPC band is cost-based and needs a full SAP/RdSAP assessment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sap_ratingNoKnown SAP rating 1-100 (returns the EPC band)
floor_area_m2NoFor carbon/primary-energy intensity
annual_energy_kwhNoMap fuel -> kWh/yr. Fuels: mains_gas, grid_electricity, heating_oil, lpg, wood_pellets, wood_logs, wood_chips, biomass_community

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that validated SAP 10 fuel factors are used and that official EPC bands require a full assessment. However, it does not clarify behavior when no parameters are supplied, what the return values look like, or how invalid fuel inputs are handled.

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?

Two focused sentences: the first states the tool's capabilities, the second adds the key limitation. No filler, no repetition of schema fields, and the caveat is positioned where it matters.

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?

The description is adequate for normal usage but incomplete for edge cases. All parameters are optional, yet there is no note about what happens with an empty invocation, and there is no output schema or return-format description. Naming an alternative carbon/EPC sibling would also improve completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the relationship between inputs and outputs and mentions validated fuel factors, but most parameter meanings are already present in the schema.

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 purpose: a UK SAP 10.3/SBEM EPC precheck that maps SAP ratings to EPC bands and/or computes annual CO2 and primary energy. It clearly distinguishes itself from a full official SAP/RdSAP assessment.

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 explicitly says the official EPC band is cost-based and requires a full SAP/RdSAP assessment, which tells the agent when not to rely on this precheck. It does not name sibling tools like calculate_carbon or building_carbon_footprint, so cross-tool routing is not fully explicit.

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

All engineering toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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 Consistency2/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources