tibber-mcp-server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the Tibber energy system: home info, price forecasts, current price, cheapest hours for devices, historical consumption, aggregated consumption report, and live measurements. No overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a 'get_*' pattern, but 'find_cheapest_hours' uses 'find' instead of 'get', introducing a slight inconsistency. Otherwise, naming is clear and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a home energy monitoring server, covering core functionalities without being overwhelming or too sparse.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers key read operations: home info, prices, consumption, and live data. The inclusion of a cost-optimization tool (find_cheapest_hours) adds value. Minor gap: no tool for updating settings or managing devices, but the server seems intended as a read-only interface.
Average 3.4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 40 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 30, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the report is aggregated and includes a comparison, but does not state that it is read-only, does not describe data freshness, authentication needs, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two lines of text and inline parameter explanations. It avoids redundancy but could be better structured by separating parameter docs from the main description.
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?
An output schema is present, so return values are not needed. However, the description lacks context on what 'aggregiert' means exactly, does not cover all parameters, and does not differentiate from sibling tools. Adequate but with gaps.
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?
The description explains two out of three parameters (period and offset) with their possible values and meanings, adding value beyond the schema. However, the 'home_id' parameter is left unexplained, and with 0% schema description coverage, more complete parameter documentation is needed.
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 clearly states the tool returns an aggregated consumption/cost report with comparison to the previous period, specifying the resource and action. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_consumption', which likely returns raw consumption data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_consumption' or others. The description only explains parameter values but lacks context on use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only mentions what data is returned and the parameters, omitting details like authentication requirements, error handling, data freshness, or whether the operation is read-only. The behavior beyond the basic functionality is not transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using three short lines to convey the main purpose and key parameters. It front-loads the overall goal and then lists parameters. However, the structure could be improved by using bullet points or clearer separation, but it remains efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the output schema exists (which the description needn't explain), the description fails to cover all parameters (home_id missing) and lacks usage context relative to siblings. For a tool with three parameters, the description is incomplete, leaving gaps that the agent must infer or discover by trial.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'resolution' (listing valid values) and 'last' (number of periods). However, 'home_id' is not mentioned, leaving its purpose unclear. The description adds value for two of three parameters, but the omission of home_id reduces the score.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves historical consumption data per period, including specific metrics (kWh, costs in EUR, average price). It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('consumption'). The mention of 'resolution' and 'last' further clarifies the scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_consumption_report which likely provides aggregated reports.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like get_live_measurement, get_price_forecast, and get_consumption_report exist, but the description does not explain when to prefer this one. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the output content but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The description lacks transparency beyond the return value.
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?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and provides specific details about the output. There is no redundant or unnecessary text.
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 adequately covers the tool's primary function and output structure, especially given the existence of an output schema. However, it omits parameter guidance and usage context, making it slightly incomplete for an agent to use correctly without further information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (home_id) with 0% description coverage in the schema, yet the description provides no information about its purpose, format, or default behavior. The description fails to add any meaning to the parameter.
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 clearly states it provides the current electricity price with classification (Tibber level, daily rank, percentage deviation). This specific verb (get) and resource (current price) with detailed output distinguishes it from siblings like get_price_forecast (future) and find_cheapest_hours (cheapest times).
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?
The description implies use for current price context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_price_forecast or find_cheapest_hours. There is no guidance on prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the output includes hourly prices for today/tomorrow with statistics, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when home_id is null.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence in German, concise and to the point. It effectively communicates the core purpose without unnecessary detail. However, it could be slightly better structured with a clearer separation of output elements.
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?
Given the tool has one optional parameter and an output schema exists, the description explains the output well but omits parameter guidance. It is adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete by describing the parameter's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description does not explain the home_id parameter, its purpose, or how it affects the output. This leaves the agent uninformed about the single parameter.
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 clearly states the tool provides hourly prices for today and tomorrow (if published) with min/max/average and cheapest/most expensive hour. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like get_current_price and find_cheapest_hours.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_current_price or find_cheapest_hours. The description does not mention prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains key behaviors: the meaning of window options, contiguous blocks vs individual hours, and that next_24h may include past hours for immediate start. This adds valuable context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with purpose and uses line breaks for readability. It is somewhat verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but effective.
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?
With an output schema present, return value explanation is not needed. The description covers most parameters and edge cases (past hours). Missing home_id is a minor gap, but overall sufficient for the tool's complexity.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains duration_hours, window, and contiguous, but omits home_id entirely. This leaves one parameter undocumented, reducing completeness.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: finding the cheapest hours for a consumer like a washing machine or EV charger. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_price_forecast, the focus on finding cheapest hours is clear.
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?
The description outlines parameters and their meanings, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_price_forecast). It does not provide when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses a 15-second timeout and requirement for a Tibber Pulse at the meter. However, it does not specify behavior if the Pulse is unavailable or error handling, but the main behavioral aspects are covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise and front-loaded with key information. The first sentence covers purpose and output, followed by timeout and requirement. While slightly verbose in the first sentence, it contains no unnecessary words.
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 covers output, timeout, and prerequisite adequately for a simple tool with an output schema. However, it omits explanation of the optional home_id parameter and how it affects results, leaving ambiguity for multi-home users. The output schema compensates for return values, but parameter context is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter home_id is optional and has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not explain its purpose, format, or how it affects the tool's behavior. Given the lack of schema descriptions, the description should compensate but fails to add meaningful parameter context.
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 clearly states it provides live measurements from Tibber Pulse: current power, min/max, daily consumption and costs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_consumption (historical) and get_home_info (general info) by focusing on real-time data with a timeout.
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?
The description implies usage when real-time data is needed from a Tibber Pulse device, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites beyond needing a Pulse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. It only describes output fields, lacking transparency about side effects or constraints.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and output. Every word is meaningful, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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?
Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function and output fields. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the return format (e.g., list of objects) though the schema likely handles that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the output, though no parameter semantics are needed. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate given the absence of parameters.
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 clearly states that the tool retrieves all homes in the Tibber account with specific details (address, tariff status, metering point, Pulse presence). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on prices, consumption, or live measurements.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied as the only tool for listing homes, but no exclusion criteria or context for when other tools might be more appropriate is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tibber-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Schimmilab/tibber-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Schimmilab/tibber-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tibber-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Schimmilab/tibber-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Schimmilab/tibber-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Schimmilab/tibber-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server