meskeIA MCP

calcular_regla_tres

Read-only

Resuelve reglas de tres simples (directa e inversa) y compuestas. La regla de tres directa: si A→B entonces C→X (X = B×C/A). La inversa: si A×B = C×X (X = A×B/C). La compuesta maneja dos variables simultáneas con cualquier combinación directa/inversa. Muestra la fórmula y los pasos de resolución.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`a`	Yes	Valor A (referencia 1 de la variable principal)
`b`	Yes	Valor B (resultado 1 de la variable principal)
`c`	Yes	Valor C (referencia 2 de la variable principal, para la que buscamos X)
`d`	No	Valor D (referencia 1 de la segunda variable). Solo para tipo "compuesta".
`e`	No	Valor E (referencia 2 de la segunda variable). Solo para tipo "compuesta".
`tipo`	Yes	"simple-directa": proporción directa (más de A → más de B). "simple-inversa": proporción inversa (más de A → menos de B). "compuesta": dos variables simultáneas.
`relacionSegundaVariable`	No	Relación de la segunda variable: "directa" (más D → más X) o "inversa" (más D → menos X). Solo para tipo "compuesta".

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing that the tool shows formulas and resolution steps. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

Three sentences that front-load the purpose and provide essential details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mathematical calculator tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the behavior (formulas, steps) and context. No gaps remain.

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%, so parameter descriptions are already in the schema. The description adds overall context but does not elaborate on individual parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 specifies the tool resolves rule of three problems: direct, inverse, and compound, with exact formulas. It distinguishes from sibling calculators by stating its specific function.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the description, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, nor comparisons with sibling tools.

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

All meskeIA MCP tools Inspect

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

Need Help?