calculator_describeThe inputs this calculator takes (with units, ranges and defaults), the outputs it returns, and the assumptions and tables behind it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the tool returns a description of inputs, outputs, and assumptions, which implies a read-only informational operation, but it does not explicitly state that no calculation is performed or that there are no side effects.
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, well-structured sentence that names the three major content areas: inputs, outputs, and assumptions/tables. It is concise, front-loaded, and every part earns its place.
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?
For a simple informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential content scope. It could be slightly more explicit about being a read-only reference and about not performing the calculation, but overall the agent can correctly understand what this tool offers.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately does not need to explain parameters. It promises details about inputs, but those are content described by the tool, not calling 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 states that the tool describes the calculator's inputs, outputs, and underlying assumptions/tables. This differentiates it from the sibling 'calculate' tool, which presumably executes the calculation, though the description does not explicitly name the alternative.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling 'calculate' or 'enquiry_describe' tools. The intended use is implied by the name and title, but the description does not state conditions such as 'use this before calculating' or 'use calculate to run the calculator.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.