Climate MCP Server

portfolio_summary

Aggregate totals across all funds: fund count, pipeline stage sums, approved projects, and adaptation/mitigation counts. Use for global portfolio overview.

Instructions

    Portfolio-wide totals across all funds: fund count, sums for each
    pipeline stage, total number_of_projects_approved when present, and
    adaptation/mitigation fund counts. No arguments.

    Use when the user asks: total pledged/approved/disbursed across ALL
    funds, how many projects approved in total, global share of approved
    funding disbursed (or not yet disbursed), or overall
    disbursement-to-pledge ratio (derive from returned totals).

    Do NOT use for a single fund — use fund_conversion_ratios,
    fund_summary, or fund_stage_totals(scope='fund', fund_id=...).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "portfolio_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the tool as returning aggregated global totals with no arguments, implying read-only behavior. Could be more explicit about being non-destructive, but sufficient for a query tool.

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 concise paragraphs: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given zero parameters and presence of output schema, description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. No gaps.

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, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by detailing what the return value includes (fund count, sums, adaptation/mitigation counts), which is not 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?

Clearly states it provides portfolio-wide totals across all funds, including fund count, sums per pipeline stage, and adaptation/mitigation fund counts. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by directing single-fund queries to other tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit use cases (e.g., 'total pledged/approved/disbursed across ALL funds') and explicitly states when not to use it ('Do NOT use for a single fund'), with concrete alternative tool names.

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