tip_calculatorWork out the tip and split the bill into amounts people can actually pay. A HelpySelf tool (helpyself.com).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bill | Yes | ||
| people | Yes | ||
| roundTo | No | ||
| taxRate | No | ||
| tipPercent | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the core behavior (tip calculation and bill splitting) but omits details about rounding logic or how tax rate is incorporated, which could affect the result.
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 concise sentence that communicates the tool's purpose without extraneous information. It is well-structured and easy to read.
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 description provides only a high-level overview. It lacks important context such as whether the tip is calculated before or after tax, how rounding works, and what the output format is. This incomplete guidance may lead to misuse or confusion.
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 schema provides no descriptions for parameters, and the description does not explain any of them (bill, tipPercent, people, roundTo, taxRate). Users are left to guess what each parameter means and how they interact.
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 function: working out the tip and splitting the bill into payable amounts. It distinguishes this from other calculators by specifying the exact use case, though it does not mention optional parameters like tax rate or rounding.
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 (whenever you need tip and bill splitting), but does not explicitly state conditions or alternatives. Given the simplicity of the tool, the implicit guidance is adequate but not explicit.
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.
Most tools are clearly single-purpose and described well, but several clusters overlap heavily: image_resizer, bulk_image_resizer, compress_to_size, and image_compressor all address image size or compression, and contrast_checker/contrast_fixer/contrast_grid plus random_picker/wheel_of_names create near-duplicate choices. An agent can often use descriptions to pick, but with 104 tools the boundary between close options is easy to mis-select.
Overall the naming is consistent snake_case with strong noun-operator patterns like pdf_merge, image_converter, and barcode_generator. Minor deviations such as what_is_my_ip, days_until_christmas, send_a_secret, and request_a_file break the pattern slightly, but they remain understandable.
104 tools far exceeds the reasonable scope for a single MCP server and hits the '50+' extreme-mismatch threshold. This creates huge prompt overhead and makes tool selection a major obstacle, especially since most tools are trivial standalone utilities rather than related operations.
The server covers many categories: text, PDFs, images, files, calculations, generators, conversions, and network utilities, and no obvious workflow dead-ends appear within those tools. But because it is a flat grab-bag rather than a scoped domain, several neighboring utility categories are missing or unevenly represented, such as CSS/JS compression, PDF text extraction, and broader date or currency workflows.