Calcula el ángulo de campo (FOV) horizontal, vertical y diagonal para una focal y sensor dados. Incluye comparativa entre Full Frame, APS-C y Micro 4/3 con el focal equivalente en 35mm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sensor | No | Tipo de sensor: ff = Full Frame, apsc15 = APS-C Nikon/Sony, apsc16 = APS-C Canon, m43 = Micro 4/3. Por defecto ff | |
| focal_mm | Yes | Focal del objetivo en milímetros (ej. 24, 35, 50, 85) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, so the description need not reiterate safety. It adds value by specifying that it includes sensor comparisons and equivalent focal lengths, which are behavioral traits beyond the annotation.
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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: first states the core function, second states the extended feature (comparison). Perfectly front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema, but clear calculation), the description explains the output (FOV angles, comparison). It could specify if results are in degrees, but it's sufficient for an agent to infer correct usage.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds examples (ej. 24, 35) and explains sensor enums, but this adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 it calculates horizontal, vertical, and diagonal FOV for given focal and sensor, and includes sensor comparison and equivalent focal. The verb 'Calcula' and resource 'ángulo de campo' are specific, and it distinguishes from other 'calcular' tools by its unique function.
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 use for FOV calculation but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only inferred.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
