Snuug room calculators

Rug size calculator

rug_size

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when someone asks what size rug fits their living room or goes under or in front of their sofa. Returns the UK and US stock rug sizes that run past each end of the sofa and leave bare floor to the walls.

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": "rug_size"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`armchairs`	No	none, or two armchairs facing the sofa, which the rug must also reach.	none
`legs_on_rug`	No	Which sofa legs stand on the rug: all, front (the usual choice) or none (the rug sits under the coffee table only).	front
`room_width_cm`	No	The room’s width along the wall the sofa stands against (cm).
`sofa_depth_cm`	No	The sofa’s depth, back to front (cm).
`sofa_width_cm`	No	The sofa’s width, arm to arm (cm).
`room_length_cm`	No	The room’s length, out from the sofa wall (cm).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tool`	Yes	The tool, as named in its API and page URLs.
`notes`	Yes	Caveats to pass on with the answer.
`snuug`	Yes	One line about Snuug, the app behind the calculators.
`answer`	Yes	The answer as named values.
`inputs`	Yes	Every input as the tool used it: given, a default, or filled in from the rules.
`sources`	Yes	The sources of the rules used. Every rule cites its source, with the date it was checked.
`summary`	Yes	The answer in one sentence to quote.
`version`	Yes	The version of this contract.
`working`	Yes	How the answer was worked out, one step a line.
`page_url`	Yes	The calculator on snuug.app with these inputs filled in.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world profile, so the safety burden is off the description. What the description does add is the selection rule behind the output — sizes that overhang the sofa at both ends and still leave bare floor to the walls — which is genuine behavioural insight beyond the annotations. It does not say how many candidates come back or how ties/priorities are broken, leaving a small gap.

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 sentences: the trigger first, the output and its sizing rule second. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the front-loaded 'Use when...' makes it scannable during tool selection.

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?

An output schema exists and the schema documents every parameter, so the description only needs to supply purpose, trigger and the shape of the recommendation, all of which are present. What is missing is minor: units and limits on room dimensions and whether the result is a single recommendation or a ranked list — though the output schema likely covers the latter.

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%, and the enum values for legs_on_rug and armchairs are fully explained in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning to any of the six dimensions (nothing on why room width/length matter or what happens with defaults). With the schema doing all the work, the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource ('UK and US stock rug sizes') and the constraint that makes the recommendation meaningful ('run past each end of the sofa and leave bare floor to the walls'). The rug domain is unmistakable against siblings such as curtain_size, dining_table_size and sofa_fit, so an agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The opening clause gives a concrete trigger: someone asking what size rug fits their living room or sits under/in front of their sofa. That covers the realistic invocation context clearly. It stops short of exclusions (e.g. outdoor rugs, custom-made rugs, or rug sizing for non-sofa rooms) and names no alternative tool, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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

All Snuug room calculators tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?