Skip to main content
Glama

meskeIA MCP

by com.meskeia

calcular_exposicion_equivalente

Read-only

Calcula exposiciones fotográficas equivalentes variando uno de los tres parámetros del triángulo de exposición (ISO, apertura o velocidad de obturación) manteniendo el mismo valor de exposición (EV). Útil para adaptar la exposición a trípode, movimiento, ruido o bokeh sin cambiar la luz registrada.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
iso_baseYesISO de la exposición original (ej. 100, 400, 1600, 3200)
nuevo_valorYesNuevo valor del parámetro elegido, en las mismas unidades: ISO sin unidades (ej. 800), f-number para apertura (ej. 5.6), segundos para obturador (ej. 0.002)
apertura_baseYesApertura original en valor f (ej. 2.8 para f/2.8, 8 para f/8)
parametro_fijoYesParámetro que cambias tú manualmente (el sistema ajusta los otros para mantener EV): iso = cambias el ISO, apertura = cambias el diafragma, obturador = cambias la velocidad
obturador_base_sYesVelocidad de obturación original en segundos (ej. 0.01 para 1/100s, 0.004 para 1/250s, 2 para 2 segundos)

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries a lower burden. The description adds usage context but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond being a read-only calculation. This is sufficient but not exceptional.

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?

The description is concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence defines the core functionality, and the second provides use cases. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 5 required parameters and no output schema. The description explains the inputs and their relationship but does not specify the exact output format (e.g., what parameters are returned). Given the complexity, it is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds overall context about the exposure triangle and purpose, but each parameter is already well-described in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool calculates equivalent photographic exposures by varying one of the three exposure triangle parameters (ISO, aperture, shutter speed) while maintaining the same EV. It also mentions specific use cases (tripod, motion, noise, bokeh), which is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling calculator tools.

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 description provides context on when to use the tool: to adapt exposure for tripod, motion, noise, or bokeh without changing light. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios, but given the sibling tools are all different calculators, this is clear and adequate.

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

All meskeIA MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are cleanly separated by domain and purpose, but a few close pairs exist: calcular_camara_lenta and calcular_regla_180_video both touch the 180° shutter rule, and calcular_pace_running and calcular_prediccion_running both produce race projections. The descriptions are detailed enough to resolve the ambiguity, but misselection is possible if they are not read carefully.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent Spanish verb_noun snake_case pattern, with calcular_ dominating and the other verbs (convertir_, consultar_, recomendar_, escalar_) used for genuinely different action types. There is no mixed casing or style inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

42 tools is far above the 25+ threshold and the set spans many unrelated domains such as cooking, fitness, photography, vehicles, dates, and finance. While each individual calculator may be useful, the server is not well-scoped and would be much easier to navigate if split into domain-specific MCP servers.

Completeness3/5

Coverage inside each sub-domain is quite thorough, but there are notable gaps: calcular_kilometraje references calcular_irpf, calcular_cuota_autonomo, and comparar_autonomo_vs_sl, none of which exist in this server. These dangling cross-references can lead an agent to attempt calling unavailable tools.

Resources