Skip to main content
Glama

Trapezoid Calculator

calculator_trapezoid
Read-only

Trapezoid area = ½(base1+base2)×height; perimeter needs both non-parallel sides.

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": "calculator_trapezoid"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
areaNoKnown area (to find height).
base1NoFirst parallel base.
base2NoSecond parallel base.
side1NoNon-parallel side 1.
side2NoNon-parallel side 2.
heightNoHeight.
calculationNoarea|perimeter|allall

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultNo
expressionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, closed-world calculation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds domain formulas and shows which inputs are needed for perimeter, but it does not explain behavior for the optional 'calculation' modes or validation constraints.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the area formula and adding the perimeter input requirement. Every clause contributes information.

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 geometry calculator with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description provides enough to understand the core computations. It is slightly incomplete regarding how the optional 'calculation' mode governs which parameters are used.

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 100%, so the parameter schema already documents all seven inputs. The description adds some meaning by mapping base1, base2, height to area and noting side1/side2 are needed for perimeter, but it does not fully clarify optionality or mode-dependent parameter combinations.

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 clearly identifies the resource and operation: computing trapezoid area and perimeter, with the relevant formulas. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling geometry calculators such as calculator_area, calculator_parallelogram, or calculator_rectangle.

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?

Usage is implied by the formulas, and the note that perimeter needs both non-parallel sides gives some input guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison against alternative area/geometry tools.

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.