depth_of_field_calculatorDepth of Field & Hyperfocal Calculator — Calculate depth of field and hyperfocal distance from focal length, aperture, and subject distance. See the near and far limits of sharp focus in meters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| aperture | Yes | ||
| focalLengthMm | Yes | ||
| subjectDistanceM | Yes | ||
| circleOfConfusionMm | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It does disclose that the output includes near and far limits of sharp focus in meters, which is useful. However, it does not describe behavior for invalid inputs, units for hyperfocal distance, or the role of circle of confusion, leaving some ambiguity.
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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and adds a concrete output detail, making it efficient and easy to scan.
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 tool is a simple calculator but has no output schema and four required parameters. The description covers the general purpose and one output detail, but omits circleOfConfusionMm as an input and does not clearly state all output values (e.g., hyperfocal distance units). This leaves the description incomplete for a full understanding.
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 only loosely references focal length, aperture, and subject distance, omitting circleOfConfusionMm entirely. This provides minimal added meaning beyond the schema's self-explanatory property names and fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter.
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 calculates depth of field and hyperfocal distance with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling calculators. However, it omits the required circleOfConfusionMm parameter from the input list, which is a notable gap.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies its use for depth of field calculations but does not mention any exclusions or compare with related calculators like crop_factor_calculator.
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 calculators occupy overlapping conceptual spaces, such as 'ai_roi_calculator' vs 'ai_automation_payback_calculator' and 'llm_self_host_vs_api_calculator' vs 'ai_build_vs_buy_calculator'. The boundaries between debt payoff, savings goal, and drawdown tools are also fuzzy, making it easy for an agent to select the wrong tool despite detailed descriptions.
Every tool follows the same <topic>_calculator pattern with lowercase snake_case, making the naming highly predictable and consistent. Even acronyms and numbers fit the pattern, so there is no mixing of conventions.
122 tools is an extreme number for a single MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for a severe mismatch. The tools span unrelated domains like AI costs, pet food, concrete, pizza dough, and turkey cooking, creating an unfocused kitchen-sink surface that overwhelms an agent's selection process.
The set covers many common calculator categories such as finance, construction, health, and AI costs, but several staple calculators are missing (e.g., BMI, tip, discount, simple interest, currency conversion). The AI cost cluster is over-saturated while other everyday calculations are absent, leaving minor but noticeable gaps.