A
licenseA
qualityB
maintenanceGenerates deterministic solar and energy storage system preliminary proposal calculations from structured customer inputs.
1
MIT
Battery Proposal Agent
Server Details
Validate US battery proposals and purchase policy-aware quote and payback results through x402.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
2 toolsdescribe_battery_proposal_serviceDescribe battery proposal checkARead-onlyInspect
Free. Returns supported utility programs, input schema, exact x402 price and purchase endpoint.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds value by stating 'Free' and enumerating the exact return contents. This provides behavioral context beyond the structured annotations, though it does not discuss authentication or rate limits.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the free status and then lists all key outputs. Every word has purpose; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with no parameters, the description fully specifies what the agent can expect from the tool: supported utility programs, input schema, exact price, and purchase endpoint. No output schema exists, so this direct enumeration is sufficient and complete.
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 zero parameters and the schema is trivially 100% covered (empty object). The baseline is 4 for no parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter information. It does reference an 'input schema' as part of the return value, which is not a parameter but clarifies output.
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?
The description uses the clear verb 'Returns' and specifies the exact resource (battery proposal service) and its outputs (utility programs, input schema, price, purchase endpoint). This distinguishes it from the sibling validate_battery_proposal_input, which focuses on input validation.
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 validate_battery_proposal_input. The description mentions it is 'Free' but does not explain prerequisites, alternatives, or the typical flow of using this tool before or after validation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
validate_battery_proposal_inputValidate battery proposal inputBRead-onlyInspect
Free. Validates a proposal before purchase. It does not reveal project-specific financial results.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| solar | No | unknown | |
| tesla | No | unknown | |
| utility | Yes | ||
| quoteUsd | Yes | ||
| ptoWindow | No | unknown | |
| standalone | No | ||
| capacityKwh | Yes | ||
| solarPaired | No | unknown | |
| batteryCount | No | ||
| acceptsControl | No | unknown | |
| incomeQualified | No | unknown | |
| equipmentCostUsd | No | ||
| solarStorageRate | No | unknown | |
| expectedEventOutputKw | No |
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and closed-world semantics. The description adds value by noting it is 'Free' and explicitly stating it does not reveal project-specific financial results, which informs expectations. No contradiction.
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?
The description is three short sentences, with no filler. Each phrase adds a distinct piece of information (cost, purpose, limitation).
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 high parameter count (14) and lack of parameter descriptions or output schema, the minimal description does not adequately equip the agent to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks guidance on input semantics or expected results beyond high-level purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema lists 14 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description provides no explanations for any parameter, leaving the agent to rely on names and enums. This is a significant gap for required fields like 'utility', 'capacityKwh', and 'quoteUsd'.
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 states a clear action ('validates a proposal') and a specific context ('before purchase'). It is distinct from the sibling tool 'describe_battery_proposal_service' which likely provides description, not validation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives.
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 phrase 'before purchase' implies when to use it, but there is no explicit exclusion or mention of when to use 'describe_battery_proposal_service' instead. The guidance is implied rather than stated.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
2 tool updates
- First observed
describe_battery_proposal_service - First observed
validate_battery_proposal_input
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Auditable US clean-energy tax-credit scenarios for 45Q, 45V, 45Y, 48E, and 45X.
Free independent solar proposal review tool for California homeowners. Audit your solar quote for pr
31One-call installer quote review plus energy incentives, estimates, scores, and routing for agents.
Live x402 endpoint trust/diligence check before you pay it. $0.02/call via x402.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceProvides electricity tariff queries and rate calculations for US utilities, enabling cost estimation and optimal charging schedules.1Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAI-powered BESS quoting & energy sales intelligence for Claude and any MCP client621MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables home solar energy planning by estimating PV output, validating consumption plans against generation and battery constraints, and automatically shifting flexible loads to ensure power availability during scheduled outages.-
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools serve clearly distinct purposes: one describes the service and returns configuration details, while the other validates input. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: describe_battery_proposal_service and validate_battery_proposal_input. The naming style is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count3/5
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin, but it may be intentionally scoped to only provide free pre-purchase helpers. This is a borderline count that is not yet excessive or severely lacking.
Completeness2/5
The tool set covers description and validation but lacks any tool to actually execute the battery proposal or retrieve project-specific financial results. This is a significant gap that prevents an agent from completing a real proposal workflow.