Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
durable-mcp

durable-mcp

by cshah26
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_flow_analysis

Fetches ERCOT transmission constraint loading for a specific date, showing which constraints are most loaded and at risk of binding.

Instructions

Get all ERCOT transmission constraint loading for a single date. Shows which constraints are most loaded and at risk of binding. Use this when asked about transmission congestion, binding constraints, or overall grid loading on a specific day.

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": {
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "get_flow_analysis"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYesMarket date in YYYY-MM-DD format

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 output (most loaded/at risk constraints) but omits behavioral traits like read-only guarantee, pagination, or auth requirements. Adequate for a simple read 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?

Three concise sentences: function, outcome, usage context. No extraneous words, well front-loaded.

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 the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and parameter format. Minor gap: no mention of return value structure.

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 100% for the single parameter 'date' with a clear description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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' and resource 'all ERCOT transmission constraint loading for a single date.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_constraint_loading' by specifying scope and risk assessment.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when asked about transmission congestion, binding constraints, or overall grid loading on a specific day.' However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools