Skip to main content
Glama

Proportion Calculator

calculator_proportion
Read-only

Use this tool to solve proportions a : b = c : x. Example: 2 : 5 = 4 : x → x = 10. Rejects a = 0.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "a": "<a>",
      "b": "<b>",
      "c": "<c>"
    },
    "name": "calculator_proportion"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aYesFirst term of the left ratio (cannot be zero).
bYesSecond term of the left ratio.
cYesFirst term of the right ratio.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aYes
bYes
cYes
xYes
resultYes
expressionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world, and an output schema exists, so the safety and return profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact — the tool rejects a = 0 — which tells the agent how the call can fail, giving real value beyond structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences: purpose and formula first, then a concrete instance, then the one constraint. Nothing is redundant and no reading is required before the call.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple pure-function calculator with full schema coverage, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description supplies the formula, an example, and the a = 0 rejection. Only the boundary versus calculator_ratio/calculator_cross is left unaddressed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the equation a : b = c : x and the example 2 : 5 = 4 : x → x = 10 map each parameter to its position in the formula, adding relational meaning the per-property descriptions do not convey on their own.

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?

States a specific verb (solve) and an exact mathematical form (a : b = c : x) with a worked example, which pins the tool down precisely. It does not name or distinguish itself from the nearby siblings calculator_ratio or calculator_cross, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

"Use this tool to solve proportions" plus the worked example implies when to reach for it, and a : b = c : x is a usable selection criterion against the ratio/cross siblings. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not conditions are stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.