Fronius MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.1.1
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct sub-systems (inverter, meter, powerflow, sensor, storage, string, ohmpilot), making them easy to tell apart. However, get_system_status and get_logger_led_info overlap in scope, and get_active_devices could cause confusion with resource-specific tools.
Naming Consistency4/5
The vast majority of tools follow a get_<resource>_<type> pattern, but test_connection breaks this. Additionally, only inverter has both info and realtime variants, while other resource types only have realtime, creating slight inconsistency across devices.
Tool Count5/5
14 tools is a well-scoped size for a Fronius solar monitoring server, covering all major subsystems without being excessive. Each tool serves a specific data access need.
Completeness4/5
The server provides comprehensive real-time data, historical archive access, and connection testing. However, static info is only available for the inverter, leaving gaps for static information about meter, sensor, storage, and other devices.
Average 3.4/5 across 14 of 14 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on September 16, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states that it retrieves information. It does not explain what 'active' means, whether the operation is safe/read-only, if authentication is needed, or what the response contains. Significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it sacrifices informative content for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description still fails to provide necessary context about what constitutes an active device, how the deviceClass filter works, and what kind of information is returned. It is incomplete for effective tool selection.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter (deviceClass) with a clear enum description, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly uses the verb 'get' and specifies the resource 'active devices', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific device types (e.g., inverter, meter). However, 'active devices' is somewhat ambiguous and does not leverage the deviceClass parameter to clarify scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_inverter_info or get_meter_realtime. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the operation and nature. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it returns data for all devices by default, potential pagination, error behavior, or auth requirements. 'Static' adds minor context but is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence without fluff, effectively conveying the core purpose. It could be enriched with more context, but it earns its place and remains appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. It clearly states the tool gets static inverter info but leaves the return format and scope details to the schema. Given the sibling context and simplicity, it's complete enough for basic use but has gaps.
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?
The schema already provides a clear description for the single parameter ('Specific device ID (optional, defaults to all devices)'), and coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'static inverter information,' clearly distinguishing it from real-time siblings like get_inverter_realtime via the word 'static.' However, it doesn't mention the optional deviceId parameter that the schema provides, so it's clear but not fully differentiating from other static getters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explicitly state that it's for static data or contrast with real-time tools, and there are no exclusions or alternative tool references. The word 'static' only implies usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Get real-time inverter data', implying a read operation but giving no details on caching, rate limits, authentication, or data freshness. The behavioral transparency is minimal beyond what 'get' implies.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 9 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to the core message. There is no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description covers the core output fields. However, it doesn't explain the impact of the dataCollection parameter on returned fields, nor any usage context. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in how to choose dataCollection or interpret results.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (deviceId and dataCollection) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics; it only lists output fields (power, energy, voltage, current). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation fully.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get real-time inverter data' with specific data types (power, energy, voltage, current). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_inverter_info (static info) and get_meter_realtime (meter data), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is a single statement without contextual usage advice, making it insufficient for an agent deciding between this and sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'real-time data' without mentioning return format, scope handling, defaults, or any side effects (e.g., whether it's read-only). For a get tool, some behavioral transparency is expected, but this is lacking.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is slightly under-specified for a tool with optional parameters, but conciseness per se is good.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and minimal annotations, the description should provide more context about what 'real-time smart meter data' includes and how the scope parameter affects results. The single sentence leaves too many gaps for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'scope' parameter, including an enum and default value. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('real-time smart meter data'), making the primary purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_inverter_realtime or get_sensor_realtime, which follow the same naming pattern and analogous descriptions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for smart meter data, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over others or mention any exclusions. The parameter 'scope' hints at System vs Device, but without guidance on which to use or when, guidance is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but gives no details about the exact content, authentication requirements, or potential limitations. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotations.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter context, the description is the only source of behavioral information. However, it is vague about what 'system status' encompasses and does not position the tool relative to its many siblings. The description is too thin to provide complete context for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes no parameters, as indicated by the empty input schema. According to the guidelines, a tool with zero parameters receives a baseline score of 4. The description adds nothing beyond that, but no parameter clarification is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The verb 'Get' and resource 'system status and logger information' clearly indicate the tool's function. It is specific enough to avoid being a tautology, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools that focus on specific subsystems like inverters or meters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of what makes this the general status endpoint or when a user should prefer a more specific tool. It simply states what it does without contextualizing it among alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but adds no context about potential side effects, rate limits, or output format. For a simple read operation this is minimally adequate, but it lacks any detailed behavioral transparency.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no redundancy, waste, or unnecessary detail. It directly states the tool's purpose in under 10 words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should explain what the caller receives, but it does not mention the return format or structure. The tool has multiple parameters and enums, yet the description offers no guidance on how to construct a valid request beyond what the schema already provides. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for all 5 parameters, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds no extra semantic meaning about how parameters relate to each other (e.g., deviceId required for Device scope), but this is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves historical archive data for a time period, which distinguishes it from the realtime sibling tools. However, it is somewhat generic in not specifying the kind of archive data or the context of the device, though the schema fills in the details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'historical' implies it should be used for past data rather than realtime, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools or mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'real-time' but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, or what side effects (if any) exist. The 'etc.' leaves the exact data content ambiguous.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with parenthetical examples that clarify scope. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple data retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description should explain what the tool returns and how the parameter alters behavior. It fails to do so—the user does not learn what MinMaxSensorData means or whether the response includes all sensor types. The description is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of the parameter (dataCollection) with a description and enum values, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how dataCollection influences the result; it merely lists example data types without linking them to the parameter.
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 identifies a clear resource ('real-time sensor data') with concrete examples (temperature, irradiance, wind). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_inverter_realtime or get_meter_realtime, which target different device types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling real-time data tools. No context about typical scenarios, exclusions, or alternatives is provided. The description merely states what it does without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the function without revealing any traits such as output format, read-only guarantees, or potential side effects.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks detail about the structure or meaning of the returned LED status information. An agent may need more context to determine if this tool satisfies a specific request.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially complete. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to add parameter details.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves logger LED status information, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_system_status and get_inverter_info, which target different data points.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, intended use cases, or situations where other tools should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It signals a read-only operation through the verb 'Get', and it mentions the data returned (voltage and current). However, it does not explain the behavior of the dataCollection parameter, especially the difference between 'NowStringControlData' and 'LastErrorStringControlData', which could significantly affect what data is returned. This leaves important behavioral details undisclosed.
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?
The description is a single, succinct sentence that communicates the tool's purpose immediately. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides basic context: it returns voltage and current per string. However, it does not clarify the significance of the two dataCollection options, particularly 'LastErrorStringControlData', which might not be 'real-time' as the description claims. This ambiguity leaves a gap in understanding correct usage.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, including an enum and default value. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not explain the semantics of the enum options, but the schema already describes it as a collection type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get real-time DC string data (voltage and current per string)'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'string data' helps differentiate it from sibling real-time tools like inverter or meter. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by naming 'DC string data', so an agent can infer when to use it. But it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other real-time tools, no exclusions, and no mentions of prerequisites. The usage is implied rather than clearly spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It merely states 'Test the connection' but does not explain what the test involves, whether it performs a network call, what the return format is (e.g., boolean, status object), or how errors are handled. This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool, the description is adequate as a minimum viable explanation, but it lacks details about the outcome or return value. Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally state what the test returns (e.g., success/failure, connection status). This missing information prevents it from being fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the input schema is empty. No additional explanation is required.
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 the specific verb 'Test' with the resource 'connection to the Fronius device', clearly distinguishing this tool from the sibling get_* tools that retrieve data. It directly states what the tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is a health check to be run before other operations, nor does it reference any sibling tools. Usage is merely implied by the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The description only repeats 'real-time' and adds data categories; it does not mention read-only status, caching, latency, or any other behavioral traits beyond what the name already implies.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it efficiently adds value by specifying the data categories. No waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description must clarify return values. It mentions production, consumption, and grid interaction, which is a good start, but it lacks details on data structure, units, or update frequency, making it only partially complete for a zero-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the schema completely covers the input. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, as there is no parameter info needed and the description appropriately avoids unnecessary details.
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 clearly states the tool gets real-time power flow data and specifies the key aspects: production, consumption, and grid interaction. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on inverter, meter, sensor, or storage real-time data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when power flow data is needed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer it over other real-time getter tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions real-time nature and data fields but does not describe error behavior, authentication requirements, or the effect of optional deviceId on output. For a simple read tool, this is minimal but lacks depth.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key output data. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary words, every word contributing to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description provides adequate basic context. However, it does not explain the response format or handle edge cases like invalid deviceId, making it somewhat incomplete but acceptable for a straightforward getter.
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?
The input schema covers the single parameter deviceId with a clear description and default behavior, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool gets real-time battery storage data and lists the specific metrics (state of charge, power, temperature). This distinguishes it from sibling real-time tools like get_inverter_realtime or get_meter_realtime, which target different resources.
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?
The description provides clear context that this tool is for storage-specific real-time data, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource naming is sufficient to differentiate it from other real-time data tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 that the operation is a 'Get' (read-only) and specifies the data fields, but it does not describe the return format, error behavior, or any side effects. The description is minimally transparent but not contradicting.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with a parenthetical clarifying the specific data types. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context to understand the core purpose and data retrieved. It could be improved with details about return structure, but the simplicity of the tool makes it reasonably complete.
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?
The input schema has one parameter with a description that covers its optional nature and default behavior (system-wide data). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves real-time OhmPilot data, specifically power and temperature from a smart heating element controller. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling realtime data tools like get_inverter_realtime or get_meter_realtime.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The device-specific name implies it is for OhmPilot data, but there is no direct guidance on selection among the many realtime data tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly state side effects, authentication, or return format. For a simple version information endpoint, this is minimally sufficient.
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?
Single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no redundant words. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and a straightforward informational purpose, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No output schema is needed for such a simple version check.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description needs no additional parameter information since none exist.
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 a clear resource 'Fronius Solar API version information', distinguishing it from sibling tools that target specific device data (inverter, meter, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are mentioned, but the tool's purpose is self-evident for retrieving API version; usage is implied by the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![fronius-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/huber/fronius-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/huber/fronius-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![fronius-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/huber/fronius-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/huber/fronius-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/huber/fronius-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server