germany-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the data source (Bundesnetzagentur/SMARD), which adds useful context about reliability and origin. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, update frequency, or potential errors, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support. This partial disclosure justifies a score of 3.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and subsequent sentences adding relevant details (energy sources and data source). Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It explains what data is shown and the source, but lacks details on output format, timeliness, or error handling. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps, scoring a minimum viable 3.

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 has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as per the rules. No additional information is required or provided.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Aktuelle Stromerzeugung in Deutschland nach Energieträger' (current electricity generation in Germany by energy source). It specifies the verb 'zeigt' (shows) and the resource 'Stromerzeugung' (electricity generation), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stromverbrauch' (electricity consumption) or 'get_energy_prices' (energy prices), which is why it scores 4 instead of 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'stromverbrauch' for consumption data or 'get_energy_prices' for pricing, nor does it specify any context or exclusions for usage. The lack of explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives results in a score of 2.

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