CE3X-MCP-Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Contrastar Consumo Facturas Reales

contrastar_consumo_facturas_reales

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare real 12-month energy consumption from bills with theoretical CE3X estimates to validate rating accuracy and detect usage anomalies.

Instructions

Compara el consumo real de energía de los últimos 12 meses (electricidad, gas natural o gasóleo) obtenido de facturas con el consumo teórico calculado por CE3X para evaluar la fiabilidad de la calificación y detectar anomalías de uso.

Cuándo usar: Invoque esta herramienta para contrastar la calificación teórica con la realidad del usuario conforme al procedimiento de validación y contraste con facturas del RD 390/2021.

Comportamiento y efectos secundarios: Operación analítica de solo lectura (Read-Only). No altera archivos.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`gasoleo_real_litros`	No	Consumo real de gasóleo de calefacción de los últimos 12 meses en litros.
`gas_natural_real_kwh`	No	Consumo real de gas natural de los últimos 12 meses en kWh.
`electricidad_real_kwh`	No	Consumo eléctrico real facturado de los últimos 12 meses en kWh.
`consumo_teorico_kwh_ano`	Yes	Consumo teórico anual total calculado por CE3X en kWh/año.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed10 schema fields changedOct 17, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / consumo_teorico_kwh_ano / description
```
Added value: +"Consumo teórico anual total calculado por CE3X en kWh/año."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / consumo_teorico_kwh_ano / exclusiveMinimum
```
Added value: +0
```
- addedInput schema / properties / electricidad_real_kwh / default
```
Added value: +0
```
- addedInput schema / properties / electricidad_real_kwh / description
```
Added value: +"Consumo eléctrico real facturado de los últimos 12 meses en kWh."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / electricidad_real_kwh / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```
- addedInput schema / properties / gas_natural_real_kwh / description
```
Added value: +"Consumo real de gas natural de los últimos 12 meses en kWh."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / gas_natural_real_kwh / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```
- addedInput schema / properties / gasoleo_real_litros / description
```
Added value: +"Consumo real de gasóleo de calefacción de los últimos 12 meses en litros."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / gasoleo_real_litros / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```
- changedInput schema / required
```
Previous value: -[
-  "consumo_teorico_kwh_ano",
-  "electricidad_real_kwh"
-]New value: +[
+  "consumo_teorico_kwh_ano"
+]
```
First observedv1.5.1Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Operación analítica de solo lectura' and 'No altera archivos,' which mostly restates the read-only annotation rather than adding new behavioral context such as authorization needs or output characteristics.

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 front-loaded with purpose and organized into clear sections for usage and behavior. It is efficient overall, though the behavior section largely repeats the read-only annotation and could be trimmed.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides sufficient context for calling the tool: purpose, regulatory context, and read-only behavior. It does not need to explain return values, but could be slightly richer about what kinds of anomalies or outputs to expect.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the energy types and 12-month period, but does not add syntax, format, or interaction details beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (compara), resource (consumo real de energía de facturas vs consumo teórico CE3X), and scope (últimos 12 meses, electricidad/gas natural/gasóleo). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling calculation tools like calcular_calificacion_energetica by focusing on validation and anomaly detection rather than producing the rating itself.

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?

Includes an explicit 'Cuándo usar' section tying invocation to the RD 390/2021 validation and invoice contrast procedure. It gives clear context but does not state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools for related tasks.

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

Deploy Server