Octopus Energy MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns consumption data in different units (kWh for SMETS1, cubic meters for SMETS2), and it explains how parameters can be sourced from environment variables. This adds useful context beyond the input schema, though it could mention rate limits or error handling for completeness.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and key details. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the complexity of 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job by explaining return units and parameter sourcing. However, it lacks details on output format, error cases, or authentication needs, which would enhance completeness for a data retrieval tool with multiple options.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by noting that MPRN and serial number can use environment variables, but it does not provide additional meaning for other parameters like period_from or group_by. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 ('gas consumption data from Octopus Energy'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_electricity_consumption' by focusing on gas rather than electricity, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 implies usage by mentioning that MPRN and serial number can come from environment variables if not provided as parameters, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tool or any alternatives, leaving guidance at an implied level without clear exclusions or comparisons.

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