EnergyAtIt MCP Server

create_dr_event

Schedule a demand response event for a facility by specifying signal type, start time, target reduction, and duration.

Instructions

Create a demand response event

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "signal_type": "<signal_type>",
      "facility_id": "<facility_id>",
      "scheduled_start": "<scheduled_start>"
    },
    "name": "create_dr_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`signal_type`	Yes	Signal type: shed, shift, shimmy
`facility_id`	Yes	Facility UUID
`scheduled_start`	Yes	Start time (ISO)
`target_reduction_kw`	No	Target reduction in kW
`duration_minutes`	No	Duration in minutes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create a demand response event' with no details on side effects, permissions, or what happens after creation. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary detail. It is not too verbose, but the minimalism reduces its helpfulness.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the tool's functionality and expected outcomes. It falls short.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation of 3.

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 'Create a demand response event', which is a specific verb+resource. The tool name itself distinguishes from siblings like dispatch_dr_event and settle_dr_event, but the description does not provide further differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dispatch_dr_event or settle_dr_event. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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