Octopus Energy MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return format (kWh with precision) and parameter fallback behavior (environment variables), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two well-structured sentences that efficiently convey purpose, return format, precision, and parameter behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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

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

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about purpose and return format, but lacks details about authentication, error handling, pagination behavior (beyond page_size parameter), and what the actual response structure looks like. The schema covers parameters well, but behavioral context is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the environment variable fallback mechanism for mpan and serial_number, but doesn't provide additional semantic context for the other parameters.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('electricity consumption data from Octopus Energy'), specifying the return unit (kWh) and precision (0.045 kWh). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_gas_consumption' by explicitly mentioning electricity.

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

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

The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (for electricity consumption data) and mentions environment variable fallbacks for parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide alternatives beyond the implicit distinction from the gas consumption sibling.

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