sunsynk_power_flowRetrieve real-time power flow for a solar plant, showing PV generation, battery state of charge, grid import/export, and load consumption with flow directions.
Current power-flow view for a plant (the 'animated diagram' data in the app): PV, battery, grid, load power and battery SOC, with flow directions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plant_id | No | Plant id; omit for the first plant |
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=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a current snapshot and identifies the data source ('animated diagram' data), but it does not disclose further behavior such as response structure or units. No contradiction 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, tightly written sentence front-loads the core purpose ('Current power-flow view for a plant') and then lists the key data fields in a compact parenthetical. No filler or redundancy.
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?
With one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description is nearly complete for a simple snapshot tool. It lists the main fields returned, though units and exact value semantics are not provided; since there is no output schema, a bit more detail could be warranted.
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% for the single optional parameter plant_id, which is documented as 'Plant id; omit for the first plant.' The tool description does not add parameter details beyond the schema, but with full coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the resource ('power-flow view for a plant') and enumerates the data it contains: PV, battery, grid, load power, SOC, and flow directions. It is distinct from siblings like sunsynk_energy_history (historical) and sunsynk_list_plants (list), though it does not explicitly differentiate from sunsynk_live_status.
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 phrase 'Current power-flow view' implies when to use it: when a current snapshot of plant power flow is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.