CalculatorLib

get_calculator_schema

Read-onlyIdempotent

Full input schema (field names, types, units, options) of one calculator. Optional: search_calculators already returns a compact schema per hit.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_calculator_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	Optional language for labels, titles and number formatting: en, es, vi, hi, ja, ko, tr, ar, ru, fr, zh, tw, pt, de (zh = Simplified, tw = Traditional Chinese; zh-CN / zh-TW / vi-VN style tags are accepted). Default: en.
`name`	Yes	Tool name from search_calculators, e.g. bmi_calculator.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`slug`	No
`title`	No
`description`	No
`inputSchema`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the payload's nature (types, units, options) and the redundancy with search_calculators, which prevents an unnecessary round trip. It does not mention locale handling or caching, minor omissions given the annotation coverage.

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, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the disambiguating note about search_calculators second. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to establish purpose and alternatives, which it does. The one small gap is that it does not say whether the returned schema is what run_calculator expects as its input shape, which would fully close the workflow loop.

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%: 'name' is documented with a concrete example tied to search_calculators and 'lang' has a full enumeration plus formatting notes. The description adds only the framing that the name identifies 'one calculator'; a baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Full input schema ... of one calculator') and enumerates what it contains (field names, types, units, options). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from search_calculators by contrasting full vs. compact schema, so an agent can pick correctly 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 clause 'Optional: search_calculators already returns a compact schema per hit' tells the agent when this call is unnecessary and therefore when it is warranted (need for full detail). It stops short of explicitly naming the escalation path to run_calculator after inspecting the schema, so it is clear but not complete routing guidance.

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

All CalculatorLib 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?