EnergyAtIt MCP Server

generate_settlement

Create a hash-chained settlement for a specified site and period, ensuring data integrity and auditability for energy settlements.

Instructions

Generate a hash-chained settlement for a site

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": {
      "site_id": "<site_id>",
      "period_start": "<period_start>",
      "period_end": "<period_end>"
    },
    "name": "generate_settlement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`site_id`	Yes	Site ID
`period_start`	Yes	Period start (ISO date)
`period_end`	Yes	Period end (ISO date)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Hash-chained' hints at cryptographic linking but does not explain idempotency, side effects, permissions, or output format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand consequences.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. However, it could include more context while remaining concise.

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?

Despite good schema coverage, the description fails to explain key concepts like 'hash-chained settlement' or the expected output (no output schema). Given the number of sibling tools, more context is needed for correct invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide (site ID, ISO dates). 'Hash-chained' is a tool-level trait, not parameter-specific.

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 generates a settlement for a site, with 'hash-chained' hinting at a specific method. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'settle_dr_event' or 'generate_compliance_package', which could cause confusion.

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 'settle_dr_event' or 'list_settlements'. The description provides no context for selection or prerequisites.

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