aivy-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

plan_discharge_to_target

Plan a steady battery discharge to hit a target state of charge by a specified end time, returning power and time slots without applying changes.

Instructions

Propose a steady discharge that lands on target_soc at end (HH:MM, site local), from the real capacity, SOC and power limits. Returns power_w and proposed time_slots. Nothing is applied.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site_id": "<site_id>",
      "end": "<end>",
      "target_soc": "<target_soc>"
    },
    "name": "plan_discharge_to_target"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end`	Yes
`start`	No
`site_id`	Yes
`target_soc`	Yes
`battery_capacity_kwh`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: 'Nothing is applied,' making this a safe, non-mutating proposal. It also states the calculation respects 'real capacity, SOC and power limits.' Undisclosed are permissions/auth needs and what happens when the target is physically unreachable by the deadline.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and goal, then the inputs it honors, then the safety disclaimer. No filler and no repetition of the schema or title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists and the description names the key return fields (power_w, proposed time_slots), so return values are covered. The non-mutating nature is stated. Remaining gaps are the optional-parameter defaults and the failure mode when the target cannot be met, both modest for a planning 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it clarifies that 'end' is HH:MM site-local, which the bare schema does not say. Optional 'start' (default null) and 'battery_capacity_kwh' are never addressed, leaving the agent to guess whether omitting them means 'start now' and 'use measured capacity.'

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('Propose a steady discharge') and a precisely bounded goal ('lands on target_soc at end'), which an agent can distinguish from planning by price. It stops short of naming the sibling plan_best_price_discharge, so the contrast is inferred from 'steady' 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: call this when you have a target SOC and a deadline rather than a price objective. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of the alternative plan_best_price_discharge, so an agent must infer the routing decision from the semantics of the goal.

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