Tibber MCP
티버 MCP 서버
이는 노르웨이의 전력 공급업체인 Tibber를 위한 MCP(Model Context Protocol) 서버입니다.
MCP 서버를 로컬에서 실행한 후 Claude Desktop이나 Roo Code 등 다른 호스트를 통해 액세스할 수 있습니다.
자세한 내용은 내 블로그 게시물을 확인하세요.
Tibber MCP 서버 구축: AI 에이전트를 에너지 소비 데이터에 연결
개요
Tibber MCP 서버는 AI 에이전트가 Tibber API 와 상호 작용하고 현재 에너지 가격 및 에너지 소비 데이터와 같은 정보를 쿼리할 수 있는 편리한 방법을 제공합니다.
Related MCP server: Tigo Energy MCP Server
예제 쿼리
MCP 서버에 연결되면 다음과 같은 질문을 할 수 있습니다.
"전력 소비 데이터를 분석하고 일반적인 피크 시간대와 기타 흥미로운 패턴을 읽기 쉬운 형식으로 제시해 주세요."
"어제 언제 가장 많은 전력을 사용했나요?"
"어제 오전 7시에 얼마나 많은 전력을 소비했나요?"
"현재 에너지 가격은 얼마인가요?"
"내일 가장 저렴한 시간대 3개를 나열해 보세요."
"내일 에너지 가격은 더 높을까요, 아니면 더 낮을까요?"
데모 비디오

건축학

요구 사항
파이썬 3.12
Tibber API 토큰( Tibber 개발자 포털 에서 얻을 수 있음)
설치
uv설치 :지엑스피1
# On Windows powershell -ExecutionPolicy ByPass -c "irm https://astral.sh/uv/install.ps1 | iex"이 저장소를 복제하세요:
git clone https://github.com/linkcd/tibber-mcp.git cd tibber-mcpPython 가상 환경을 설정하고 종속성을 설치합니다.
uv venv --python 3.12 && source .venv/bin/activate && uv pip install --requirement pyproject.toml
호스트 구성
VS의 Claude Desktop 또는 Roo Code에서
{
"mcpServers":{
"tibber":{
"command":"uv",
"args":[
"--directory",
"[PATH-TO-ROOT-OF-THE-CLONED-TIBBER-MCP-FOLDER]",
"run",
"server.py"
],
"env":{
"TIBBER_API_TOKEN":"[YOUR-TIBBER-TOKEN]"
}
}
}
}중요 :
[YOUR-TIBBER-TOKEN]실제 토큰으로 바꾸세요. 실제 자격 증명을 버전 제어에 커밋하지 마세요.
MCP 서버를 로컬로 디버깅하고 테스트합니다.
서버를 로컬로 실행하고 MCP 검사기를 실행합니다.
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector -e TIBBER_API_TOKEN=[YOUR-TIBBER-TOKEN] python server.py사용 가능한 도구
서버는 LLM이 사용할 수 있는 다음 도구를 제공합니다.
get_consumption_data(): 기간, 총 비용, 기본 에너지 비용, 소비된 kwh 등 지난 30일 동안의 시간당 소비 데이터를 가져옵니다.get_price_and_home_info(): 가격 정보(현재, 오늘, 내일)와 주택 정보(소유자, 주소, 구독...)를 가져옵니다.
특허
감사의 말
Available Tools
2 toolsget_consumption_dataB
Get the hourly consumption data for the last 30 days, such as time period, total cost, base energy cost, and consumpted kwh.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
get_price_and_home_infoB
Get the infomation of: 1. current price, with price break down, price level, and currency 2. hourly price and price level of today 3. hourly price and price level of tomorrow 4. home address info, timezone etc the currency is applying to all prices
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
2 tool updates
- First observed
get_consumption_data - First observed
get_price_and_home_info
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
MCP server exposing the Backtest360 engine API as tools for AI agents.
The official Model Context Protocol server for Ambee. It gives any MCP-compatible AI assistant — Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, VS Code, Ollama, and more direct access to live air quality, pollen, and weather data. To get started, including information on signing up and obtaining your Ambee key, check out the Ambee documentation on https://docs.ambeedata.com
Nifty's MCP server — exposes tasks, projects, messages, and files as tools for AI agents.
MCP server wrapping the Tesla Fleet API and TeslaMate API
Related MCP Servers
AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server providing tools for AI-agents to interact with Enapter EMS.Apache 2.0- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides comprehensive access to Tigo Energy solar system data and analytics. It enables AI assistants to interact with your Tigo solar monitoring system to retrieve production data, performance metrics, system health information, and maintenance insights.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for EmonCMS energy monitoring API, enabling AI assistants to query energy feeds, inputs, and historical data.1-
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server that enables LLMs to interact with Monta's EV charging platform for managing charge points, charging sessions, and wallet operations.7-