Calcula el pace (ritmo por kilómetro), velocidad media, splits por km y proyecciones para 5K, 10K, media maratón y maratón a ese mismo ritmo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tiempo_s | Yes | Tiempo empleado en segundos (ej. 3000 para 50 minutos) | |
| distancia_km | Yes | Distancia recorrida en kilómetros (ej. 10 para un 10K) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only. The description adds value by listing the computed outputs (pace, speed, splits, projections), providing behavioral context 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?
Single sentence covering all outputs, efficient but slightly lengthy. Could be front-loaded with key outputs first.
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?
Without output schema, the description adequately lists expected outputs (pace, speed, splits, projections). Units are implied but not explicitly stated.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information, so 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 the tool calculates pace, average speed, splits, and projections for standard running distances. The verb 'calcula' and specific resources are explicit.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calcular_prediccion_running'. Usage is implied but not differentiated.
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.
