sunsynk_api_getFetch solar, battery, or inverter data from any read-only Sunsynk Connect API endpoint under api/v1/ and receive the response's data field.
Escape hatch: perform a read-only GET against any Sunsynk Connect endpoint under api/v1/ (e.g. 'api/v1/plant/123/realtime?id=123'). Returns the 'data' field of the response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Relative path starting with api/v1/ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description aligns with them by stating this is read-only and accepts 'any' endpoint. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations, namely that the tool returns the 'data' field of the response instead of the full payload.
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 sentences with no filler. The purpose, scope, example, and return behavior are all front-loaded and clearly separated, making the description quick to parse.
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 one-parameter raw GET escape hatch with openWorldHint and readOnlyHint, the description is fully sufficient: it states the path convention, gives an example, and explains the response envelope. There is no output schema, so explaining the returned 'data' field is the right level of completeness.
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 already documents the path parameter with a description, and schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the api/v1/ requirement and provides a concrete example including a query string, which adds a little practical guidance but does not fundamentally expand parameter semantics.
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?
Describes exactly what the tool does: 'perform a read-only GET against any Sunsynk Connect endpoint under api/v1/' with a concrete example. The 'escape hatch' framing clearly distinguishes it from the dedicated sibling tools that cover specific endpoints.
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 'escape hatch' label implies use when no dedicated sibling tool covers the endpoint, and the description clearly scopes it to arbitrary paths under api/v1/. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this only when dedicated tools don't apply', but the intent is strongly conveyed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.