EnergyAtIt MCP Server

get_asset_reliability

Retrieve the reliability score for an energy asset using its ID to assess performance and inform maintenance decisions.

Instructions

Get reliability score for an asset

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": {
      "asset_id": "<asset_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_asset_reliability"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asset_id`	Yes	Asset ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond reading. Does not mention whether operation is read-only, any side effects, permissions, or response nature.

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?

Extremely concise: single sentence with no unnecessary words.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally acceptable but could mention the nature of the reliability score (e.g., range, units).

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 parameter (asset_id). Description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('reliability score for an asset'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_site_reliability' and 'get_grid_capacity'.

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. No mention of when-not or context conditions.

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