aiseg2-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: instantaneous overview, per-circuit draw, canonical names, daily totals, historical energy, and historical cost. The only slight overlap is get_power_flow's top circuits vs get_circuit_breakdown, but descriptions clearly differentiate summary versus full detail.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use snake_case verb_noun patterns: get_ for data retrieval and list_ for enumerating resources. The naming is consistent and predictable, following a clear convention.
Tool Count5/5
6 tools is well-scoped for a read-only energy monitoring API. Each tool provides a distinct piece of data without being redundant or overwhelming.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers current status, per-circuit breakdown, canonical circuit list, daily cumulative totals, long-term history, and cost history. For a monitoring-focused server, this is complete and leaves no obvious dead ends.
Average 4.6/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- 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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: it pages through the AiSEG2's circuit list, returns ranks, names, watts, total watts, and page count, and warns that names may wrap. This is useful context not present in structured fields.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by paging behavior and a name caveat. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or 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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the necessary context: what it does, how it pages, what it returns, and a name accuracy caveat. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; instead it clarifies what the output contains (rank, name, watts, total, pages), providing semantic value beyond the empty 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?
The description states the tool 'Get[s] the instantaneous power draw of every measured circuit, ranked highest first,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from the sibling list_circuits by noting that names here are display-derived and list_circuits is authoritative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context that this is for measuring instantaneous power per circuit and explicitly says list_circuits() is the authoritative name source, guiding when to use the alternative. It does not explicitly enumerate all exclusions but gives practical guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies that unavailable meters are represented as null, and explicitly lists the four totals returned. This informs the agent about response semantics, which is not captured in annotations.
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 concise (three sentences), front-loads the core purpose and read-only nature, and each sentence adds essential information: what it does, what it returns, and null handling. There is no fluff or redundancy with the schema.
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?
For a simple, no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the operation, scope, return values, and edge-case behavior (null for unavailable meters). No additional context is needed, and the output schema handles return format details.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially covered at 100%. The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adequately conveys that no arguments are needed.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('today's cumulative energy totals'), and unit (kWh), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on daily cumulative totals. It also enumerates the returned components (generation, consumption, grid-buy, grid-sell), making the scope unambiguous.
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 by stating it returns today's totals, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like get_history or get_power_flow. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage is only inferred rather than directly instructed.
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?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by detailing what data is returned and under what conditions (e.g., 'if a battery is connected'). It goes beyond the annotations by specifying the return contents, although it does not discuss error cases or access requirements.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the read-only and time-sensitive nature, and packs useful detail into a compact list of return categories. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 the tool's moderate complexity, zero parameters, and existing output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: it states the resource, the temporal scope, the return categories, and conditional elements. No critical invocation details are missing.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties), so there is no parameter meaning to clarify. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output rather than input semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the exact resource ('AiSEG2's instantaneous whole-home power flow'), and clearly scopes it to 'right now.' It enumerates distinct return values (generation/consumption, buy/sell status, battery, per-source breakdown, top circuits) that distinguish it from the historical/circuit-focused sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly conveys real-time, current-state usage through words like 'instantaneous' and 'right now,' which implies use for immediate monitoring rather than historical analysis. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_history or get_circuit_breakdown, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for a live snapshot.
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?
Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), adds unique behavioral details: SD card requirement, cached download sharing with get_history, and return format with JPY values. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Efficiently structured with purpose first, then requirements, then return format, then args. 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 output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, dependencies, return shape, and all parameters thoroughly. No significant gaps for an agent to misuse.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no descriptions, so the Args section compensates fully: explains granularity formats, inclusive ranges, limit default, and offset pagination. Adds meaning beyond the raw 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?
States specific purpose: querying long-term energy-cost history from SD-card export. Distinguishes from sibling get_history by noting cache sharing and cost-specific focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context: requires SD card, read-only, shares cached download with get_history. Does not explicitly name exclusions but implies usage for cost history queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses valuable behavioral details: the SD-card requirement, caching behavior with first call latency, return format as long-form points, and limit/offset pagination semantics. This significantly informs the agent.
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 well-structured with a summary sentence, requirements, behavior notes, and an Args list. Every sentence provides useful information without repetition or fluff, making it efficient despite its length.
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?
The description covers all aspects needed to use the tool: purpose, prerequisites, caching behavior, return format, and full parameter semantics. Given the output schema exists, return values need no further explanation, making the description complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description entirely compensates by explaining every parameter in detail: granularity-specific date formats, standard metric keys, circuit filtering, and limit/offset defaults. This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema types.
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 queries the AiSEG2's long-term energy history from its SD-card export, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_daily_totals or get_cost_history, so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: it requires an SD card, notes the first call is slow due to caching, and explains pagination. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds context beyond annotations: authoritative source from installation settings, notes that names may differ due to line wraps. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent, so description adds provenance.
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 sentences, front-loaded with read-only and list action, then essential nuance. Zero waste.
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?
For a zero-param tool with output schema and strong annotations, the description fully explains purpose, authoritative nature, and relationship to a sibling. Complete.
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; schema trivially covers everything. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
Specific verb+resource: lists registered measurement circuits with stable ids and names. Distinguishes from sibling get_circuit_breakdown by noting authoritative naming.
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?
Explicitly states when to prefer this tool (canonical circuit names) and cites get_circuit_breakdown as the alternative with display-derived names. Clear usage context.
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:

[![aiseg2-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chanyou0311/aiseg2-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chanyou0311/aiseg2-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![aiseg2-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chanyou0311/aiseg2-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/chanyou0311/aiseg2-mcp)

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/chanyou0311/aiseg2-mcp'

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