Free, public calculators and safety-screened DIY guides for carpet cleaning, upholstery cleaning, and limited water-damage cleanup.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool targets a distinct cleaning scenario: carpet, upholstery, or water damage. There is no overlap in purpose, so an agent can easily select the appropriate tool based on the surface or incident type.
All tool names begin with 'plan_' and follow a predictable pattern. The only minor inconsistency is the suffix: two use 'cleaning' while one uses 'cleanup', which is slightly inconsistent but still clear and readable.
With only three tools, the set is well-scoped for a specialized cleaning planner. Each tool covers a major category, and the count is within the ideal 3-15 range, feeling neither sparse nor bloated.
The tools cover carpet, upholstery, and water damage, but the server name suggests a broader 'Advanced Cleaning' scope. Missing common DIY areas like hard floors or tile create noticeable gaps, though the included scenarios are each handled thoroughly.
Estimate conservative labor, elapsed time, generic chemistry, extraction water, drying time, equipment and steps for a DIY carpet cleaning project. Uses product-label dilution and includes fiber safety warnings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fiber | No | synthetic | |
| stairs | No | Number of individual stair treads | |
| workers | No | ||
| areaSqFt | Yes | Measured carpet area in square feet | |
| petSpots | No | ||
| furniture | No | light | |
| soilLevel | No | moderate | |
| equipmentType | No | rental | |
| petSpotAreaSqFt | No | ||
| coverageSqFtPerGal | No | ||
| labelDilutionOzPerGal | No | Product-label concentrate ounces per ready-to-use gallon |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral context: estimates are 'conservative', uses product-label dilution, and includes fiber safety warnings, which informs the user about calculation assumptions and output nature.
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?
Two clear sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words.
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?
Given the 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main output dimensions and key assumptions, though it could be more explicit about the returned structure and edge cases. Still, annotations and schema defaults fill many gaps.
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 only 27%, and the description partially compensates by referencing product-label dilution and fiber safety, which relate to labelDilutionOzPerGal and fiber. However, most parameters (stairs, petSpots, furniture, soilLevel, etc.) are not individually explained, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
Provides a specific action (estimate) and resource (DIY carpet cleaning project), listing the output dimensions (labor, time, chemistry, etc.), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on carpet cleaning with safety warnings.
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?
Usage context is implied from the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over plan_upholstery_cleaning or plan_water_damage_cleanup, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Use furniture, manufacturer care code, material and soil level to screen wet-cleaning safety and estimate conservative labor, chemistry, equipment, drying and steps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workers | No | ||
| careCode | Yes | Manufacturer cleaning code; use UNKNOWN when no reliable tag exists | |
| itemType | Yes | ||
| material | Yes | ||
| petSpots | No | ||
| itemCount | Yes | ||
| soilLevel | No | moderate | |
| stainType | No | none | |
| hasDryVacuum | No | ||
| hasExtractor | No | ||
| looseCushions | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by noting that it screens for wet-cleaning safety and provides conservative estimates. This clarifies that the tool is for planning and safety assessment rather than execution, even though it doesn't detail how unsafe combinations are handled.
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, front-loaded sentence that packs key information without unnecessary words. It lists both inputs and output categories efficiently. While a slightly more structured breakdown could improve readability, the description remains concise and to the point.
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?
With no output schema, the description conveys the general plan structure (safety assessment plus estimates of labor, chemistry, equipment, drying, and steps), but it lacks specifics on how parameters influence results, how to handle unknown codes or materials, or the output format. Given the tool's complexity, the description provides an adequate but not fully complete picture.
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 only 9%, placing the burden on the description to explain parameters. The description mentions four inputs (furniture, care code, material, soil level) but does not add meaningful semantics for the other seven parameters (workers, petSpots, stainType, hasDryVacuum, hasExtractor, looseCushions, itemCount). The mapping helps but is insufficient for a tool with 11 parameters.
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 clearly identifies the tool's function as screening wet-cleaning safety and estimating labor, chemistry, equipment, drying, and steps for upholstery cleaning. The specific verbs 'screen' and 'estimate' combined with the resource 'upholstery' distinguish it from other planning tools like carpet cleaning or water damage cleanup.
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 implies the appropriate use case: planning DIY upholstery cleaning when furniture type, manufacturer care code, material, and soil level are known. It does not explicitly exclude carpet or water damage scenarios, but the focus on upholstery makes the context clear. No alternative tools are mentioned, though the resource specificity provides sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Screen a water incident for mandatory professional-only stop conditions. Only eligible limited cases receive water-volume, labor, equipment, chemistry and procedural DIY guidance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| gasRisk | No | ||
| workers | No | ||
| ageHours | Yes | ||
| areaSqFt | Yes | ||
| materials | Yes | ||
| depthInches | Yes | ||
| hasWetVacuum | No | ||
| hvacAffected | No | ||
| moldAreaSqFt | No | ||
| roomsAffected | No | ||
| sourceStopped | Yes | ||
| electricalRisk | No | ||
| floorsAffected | No | ||
| structuralRisk | No | ||
| tankCapacityGal | No | ||
| hasMoistureMeter | No | ||
| availableAirMovers | No | ||
| vulnerableOccupants | No | ||
| availableDehumidifiers | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: it actively screens out cases with mandatory professional-only stop conditions and only returns guidance for eligible limited incidents. However, it does not describe the specific stop conditions or the structure of the returned guidance, so behavioral detail is modest.
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 two sentences, with the core screening purpose front-loaded. Every clause adds value—first the screening action, then the conditional guidance output. No fluff or repetition.
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?
Given 20 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level contract: triage and DIY guidance for eligible cases. It lists the output categories and clarifies the eligibility limitation, but it omits decision thresholds, return format, and any explanation of what happens when a stop condition is met.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the 20 input parameters. It mentions output categories like water-volume, labor, equipment, chemistry, and procedural guidance, but gives no guidance on how to set source, ageHours, areaSqFt, materials, or any other parameter. This leaves the agent without parameter-level meaning.
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 clearly states the tool's specific function: screening a water incident for mandatory professional-only stop conditions and providing DIY guidance for eligible limited cases. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on water damage cleanup rather than carpet or upholstery cleaning.
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 implies when to use the tool—for water incidents that need triage to decide between professional-only and DIY cleanup. It clearly scopes to 'limited DIY' cases but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
plan_carpet_cleaningplan_upholstery_cleaningplan_water_damage_cleanup
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.