Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ApexMCP

ApexMCP

by mad-science-lab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

apex_power_summary

Retrieve total watts and amps, line voltage, and top consumers from an EB832 energy bar to monitor Neptune Apex aquarium power usage.

Instructions

Total watts and amps, line voltage and the top consumers. Needs an energy bar such as the EB832.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "apex_power_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the hardware prerequisite, which is real behavioral context. It doesn't state whether the call fails or returns zeros without an energy bar, nor whether the figures are instantaneous or averaged, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the returned content before the prerequisite. Nothing is wasteful, though the telegraphic phrasing ('Total watts and amps') leaves the sentence slightly fragmentary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the description covers content plus prerequisite for a one-optional-param tool. Still missing is failure/degradation behavior when no energy bar is attached, which is the main ambiguity for an agent deciding to call it.

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 0% and the single parameter 'top' (default 5) is undocumented in the schema. The description's phrase 'the top consumers' at least implies that 'top' controls how many consumers are listed, partially compensating for the gap. It doesn't confirm that mapping or bound the value.

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?

Names the resource and content precisely: total watts and amps, line voltage, and top consumers. That verb-less but specific enumeration is clearly distinct from siblings like apex_get_probes or apex_outlet_events. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it replaces, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The prerequisite 'Needs an energy bar such as the EB832' tells the agent when this tool will actually be useful. However, it offers no guidance on alternatives (e.g., use apex_get_outlets for per-outlet state) or what to do when no energy bar is present.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools