Assess UAE grid connection feasibility (DEWA/ADDC/SEWA/FEWA). Returns feasibility score, connection timeline, recommended voltage, substation requirement, and next steps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intended_use | Yes | ||
| site_location | Yes | ||
| voltage_level | Yes | ||
| has_existing_supply | Yes | ||
| power_requirement_mw | Yes | ||
| target_completion_year | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It communicates that this is a read-only assessment by listing return values such as feasibility score and timeline. However, it does not disclose limitations, assumptions, whether utility approval is included, or what the feasibility score represents.
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, focused sentence that packs in scope, utilities, and expected outputs without any filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and act on.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple feasibility assessment tool: it states what it does and what it returns. However, with 6 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, it lacks guidance on parameter units, score interpretation, or any caveats, leaving some gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for 6 required parameters, and the description does not explain the meaning of site_location, power_requirement_mw, voltage_level, intended_use, has_existing_supply, or target_completion_year. It only references the UAE utilities, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from parameter names and enums.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Assess', with a clear resource, 'UAE grid connection feasibility', and names the relevant utilities (DEWA/ADDC/SEWA/FEWA). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like assess_epbd_score or uae_climate_ghg, which address different UAE-related assessments.
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 conveys an implied use case: evaluating grid connection feasibility for UAE locations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have distinct domains (structural, carbon, compliance, heat pumps), but several overlap at a surface level: calculate_carbon, building_carbon_footprint, and uae_climate_ghg all deal with carbon; estimate_cooling_load and thermal_load both compute cooling loads; and multiple UK/UAE compliance checkers have similar 'readiness/checker/precheck' names. Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent could still select the wrong tool without careful reading.
Naming is a mix of verb-led patterns (assess_epbd_score, calculate_carbon, check_uae_bim_compliance, estimate_cooling_load, get_technical_dd_quote) and noun-led phrases (building_carbon_footprint, building_readiness, digital_renovation_passport, roi_calculator, thermal_load). Sub-groups like check_* and eurocode_* are consistent internally, but the overall set has no unifying convention, which adds cognitive load.
With 27 tools, the server exceeds the 'heavy' range, even though the engineering domain is broad. Many tools are highly specialized (e.g., part_s_ev, mees_checker, dgnb_bim_readiness), and the large count risks overwhelming an agent trying to pick the right one. The scope may justify the number, but it edges into too-many territory.
The server covers a wide range of building and sustainability assessments: carbon, energy, compliance (EU/UK/UAE), structural design, cost benchmarking, and data centres. However, there are gaps in adjacent areas common to building engineering—such as acoustic design, water/sanitation, electrical systems, or thermal bridging—which would be expected from a general 'engineering' server. It is reasonably complete for its apparent sustainability/regulatory focus, but not universally.
