Labreador

Dietary health risk (EDI, THQ, HI, CR)

dietary_risk

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute Estimated Daily Intake, Target Hazard Quotient per element, Hazard Index and optional cancer risk for contaminants in food. The result echoes the inputs received, lists plausibility warnings and includes the required Labreador citation.

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": {
      "ingestionRateKgPerDay": "<ingestionRateKgPerDay>",
      "bodyWeightKg": "<bodyWeightKg>",
      "elements": "<elements>"
    },
    "name": "dietary_risk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`elements`	Yes
`bodyWeightKg`	Yes	Body weight in kg.
`ingestionRateKgPerDay`	Yes	Food ingestion rate in kg/day (wet weight basis). Convert kg/year by dividing by 365.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful output behavior: the result echoes inputs back, emits plausibility warnings, and includes a required Labreador citation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences that lead with the core computation and then the returned artifacts. No filler, though the acronym-laden first sentence is dense enough to slow comprehension slightly.

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 no output schema, the description usefully covers return contents (echoed inputs, plausibility warnings, citation) and the optional-vs-required logic for cancer risk. What is missing is guidance on input validity limits or how the sibling pollution_indices differs, but the essentials for calling the tool are present.

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 67%, with the element fields (csf, name, rfdMgPerKgDay, concentrationMgPerKg) individually documented in the schema. The description only adds that cancer risk is optional, which corresponds to the non-required csf field; otherwise it adds nothing beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (compute) and names the exact metrics produced (EDI, THQ per element, HI, optional cancer risk) for contaminants in food. This clearly separates it from fit_standard_curve, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the more topically similar pollution_indices sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and neither alternative (pollution_indices, fit_standard_curve) is mentioned. The reader must infer applicability purely from the metrics named.

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

All Labreador 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?