Skip to main content
Glama
linkcd

Tibber MCP

by linkcd
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one focuses on consumption data (historical usage and costs), while the other focuses on price information and home details (current, forecasted pricing and location/timezone). There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the query.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' prefix and descriptive names (get_consumption_data and get_price_and_home_info). The naming is predictable and readable, adhering to a clear convention throughout the set.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a domain like energy/utility management, which typically involves more operations such as setting preferences, controlling devices, or accessing billing history. While the tools cover key data retrieval aspects, the count is borderline low for comprehensive agent interaction.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools provide good read-only coverage for consumption and pricing data, but there are notable gaps: no update/delete operations, no ability to manage home settings or devices, and no support for actions like adjusting energy usage or handling billing. This limits the server to data retrieval only, which may cause agent failures in broader utility management tasks.

  • Average 3/5 across 2 of 2 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
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • 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?

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the data returned but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or response format. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

    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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and scope. It lists data fields concisely without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the action from the data details, but overall it's appropriately sized with minimal waste.

    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 tool's complexity (data retrieval with no parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers what data is fetched but omits behavioral traits, usage context, and output details. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance to aid the agent effectively.

    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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, as there are none to explain. It implies the tool operates without user-provided parameters, which aligns with the schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description doesn't contradict or add unnecessary info.

    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 action ('Get') and resource ('hourly consumption data'), specifying the time range ('last 30 days') and data fields (e.g., time period, total cost). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_price_and_home_info' by focusing on consumption rather than price/home info, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling 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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tool 'get_price_and_home_info'. It mentions the data scope but doesn't explain use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear context for tool selection.

    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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. It lacks critical behavioral context for an agent.

    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 structured as a bulleted list which helps organization, but contains minor spelling errors ('infomation') and could be more front-loaded. The information is reasonably concise but not optimally polished.

    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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what data is returned (price breakdowns, home info). However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context about the operation's characteristics and return format.

    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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the empty parameter set. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on what the tool returns rather than what it accepts.

    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 price information (current, hourly today/tomorrow) and home address/timezone data. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resources (price data, home info), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_consumption_data'.

    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 the sibling 'get_consumption_data'. The description lists what data is retrieved but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.

    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

tibber-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

tibber-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/linkcd/tibber-mcp'

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