Free, read-only guides on electrical safety, EICRs, landlord duties and EV chargers in London. Search, read and newest guides, plus booking links. No account, no key. Official MCP Registry: uk.energynorth/journal.
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: booking_info covers booking electrical work, get_guide retrieves full text by link, latest_guides browses newest items, and search_guides queries the guide collection. Although latest_guides and search_guides both return guide listings, one is recency-based browsing and the other is query-based search, and the get_guide description explicitly references both sources, eliminating ambiguity.
All names use snake_case, but the structural convention is mixed: get_guide and search_guides follow a verb_noun action pattern, latest_guides uses an adjective_noun pattern, and booking_info is a noun phrase. The set remains readable, but it does not follow a single predictable naming scheme.
Four tools are well-scoped for a narrow guides-and-booking server. Each tool earns its place by covering a distinct need: booking guidance, search, recency browsing, and full-text retrieval.
The set covers the core public content lifecycle: discover guides via search or latest listing, then read full text, plus booking information. Minor gaps exist, such as no category browsing or direct list-all-guides operation, but agents can work around these using search_guides.
How to book an EICR, an EV charger survey or other electrical work with Energy North, with the right links and the areas covered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered. The description adds that the payload is static reference content with external links and coverage areas, but says nothing about the shape or length of what is returned.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The trailing 'with the right links and the areas covered' is slightly loose but still conveys useful scope 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 zero-parameter static information tool with no output schema, the description covers the subject matter thoroughly enough to answer 'what will I get back'. A brief note on the return format would make it fully complete, but the gap is minor.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed — it is a fixed lookup — and adds nothing misleading about inputs.
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?
States a specific informational outcome — how to book an EICR, EV charger survey or other electrical work with Energy North — and lists the scope (links, areas covered). It is clear this returns booking guidance rather than performing a booking, but it does not distinguish itself from the guide-oriented siblings (get_guide, search_guides).
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 when-to-use statement and no reference to any alternative. An agent must infer from the topic alone that this is the right tool for booking questions rather than calling get_guide or search_guides.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read the full text of one guide by its link (from search_guides or latest_guides).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The guide link, e.g. https://energynorth.blogspot.com/2026/10/... |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that this returns the full text of a single guide, distinguishing it from snippet-level discovery calls. It does not mention failure behavior for bad links, so 4 rather than 5.
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?
A single sentence with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the parenthetical supplying the URL source is the only additional information needed.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: it reads full text of exactly one guide, keyed by a link obtained elsewhere. The absence of any note on link validity or error behavior is the only small gap.
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 coverage is 100% and the url parameter is documented with an example, so the schema carries the format burden. The description adds the provenance of the link (from search_guides or latest_guides), which is useful but marginal, matching the baseline 3.
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?
States a specific verb (read) and resource (one guide) with explicit scope (full text), which cleanly separates it from the discovery-oriented siblings search_guides and latest_guides, which it names as the source of the input.
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?
Tells the agent when to reach for this tool: after obtaining a link from search_guides or latest_guides. There is no explicit when-not or statement of what happens with an invalid/stale link, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the newest guides, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| journal | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the result ordering ('newest first'), which is useful, but says nothing about default page size, whether 'limit' caps results, or what the journal filter does.
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?
A single short clause with the ordering constraint front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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 simple two-parameter list tool whose annotations cover safety and with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the unexplained 'journal' enum (particularly 'ev') and unstated limit behavior leave real gaps an agent would need to call this 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% for two parameters, so the description carries the burden and does not mention either 'limit' or 'journal'. The 'newest first' phrase implies default ordering but gives no meaning to the journal enum values (all/main/ev), which are opaque without documentation.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('guides') with a scope qualifier ('newest, newest first'). It is distinguishable from get_guide (single fetch) and search_guides (query-driven), but it never names those siblings or explains the contrast explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative named. The agent must infer that this is for browsing recent items versus using search_guides for a targeted query, which is left entirely unstated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the Energy North guides (electrical safety, EICR, landlords, consumer units, EV chargers, business premises). Returns titles, links and a short summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many results, default 8. | |
| query | Yes | What the person wants to know, in plain words, e.g. "EICR for a rented flat" or "EV charger on a terraced house". | |
| journal | No | all (default), main (electrical guides) or ev (EV charger guides). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that the annotations don't: it states the return shape (titles, links, short summary), which matters because there is no output schema.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler. The search scope is front-loaded and the return-value sentence follows immediately.
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?
With full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description needs to supply only scope and return shape, both of which it does. It could go slightly further by clarifying the search-vs-get-vs-latest distinction, but nothing required to invoke the tool correctly is missing.
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 100%: query, limit and the journal enum are all documented with defaults and examples in the schema itself. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Search the Energy North guides') and enumerates the covered topic areas, so an agent immediately knows the scope. It does not name its siblings (get_guide, latest_guides), so the distinction from a retrieval-by-id or recency-listing tool is left implicit rather than stated.
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?
Usage is implied by 'search' plus the plain-words query semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer get_guide (fetch a known guide) or latest_guides (recent items) over a query-based search. The agent must infer the routing decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
booking_infoget_guidelatest_guidessearch_guides
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.