Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

WritersLogic business agents

by com.writerslogic.agents
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

tolerance-stack

One-dimensional tolerance stack-up (worst-case and RSS) — Computes the minimum and maximum of a linear dimensional stack (the gap) from signed contributions with symmetric, unequal-bilateral, unilateral or min/max limits, both by exact worst-case arithmetic and by root-sum-square, names the dominant contributor and tests the gap against a required minimum and/or maximum. For mechanical designers and agents checking clearances. It does not do 2D or 3D sta

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": {
      "dimensions": "<dimensions>"
    },
    "name": "tolerance-stack"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
unitNoLabel for the single unit all numbers share (not converted).
methodNoWhich result decides status against the requirement (default worst-case). Both are always reported.
dimensionsYesAt most 100. Give nominal with tol, or nominal with plus and/or minus (unilateral: one of them), or min and max.
sigmaLevelNoRSS: each tolerance is this many sigma (default 3).
reportSigmaNoRSS: report the gap at this many sigma (default equals sigmaLevel).
requirementNoAllowed gap range.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose substantive traits: both worst-case and RSS are always computed regardless of the chosen method, the dominant contributor is named, and the gap is tested against the requirement. It does not say anything about error conditions (e.g. inconsistent or missing limit forms within a dimension) or the shape of the result, leaving real gaps for a computation tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The content is front-loaded with the verb and resource in the first clause, which is correct, but the whole definition is a single dense run-on sentence packing method, forms, outputs and exclusions together. It also terminates mid-word ('2D or 3D sta'), which reads as a truncation defect rather than deliberate concision.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to explain what comes back; it partly does by mentioning the gap min/max, RSS, dominant contributor and requirement test, but never states the concrete result fields or the status semantics. For a 6-parameter tool with nested dimension objects, the definition is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the response and about input validation behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add conceptual framing beyond the schema by enumerating the admissible tolerance forms (symmetric, unequal-bilateral, unilateral, min/max) and by explaining that contributions are signed and combine into a gap, but it adds no field-level detail that the schema does not already contain.

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?

States a specific artifact and computation: 'One-dimensional tolerance stack-up (worst-case and RSS)' that 'Computes the minimum and maximum of a linear dimensional stack (the gap) from signed contributions'. It even carves out scope by declaring what it does not do (2D/3D stacks), so an agent knows exactly the class of problem this solves.

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?

The opening parenthetical and the phrase 'For mechanical designers and agents checking clearances' imply the use case, and the closing 'It does not do 2D or 3D sta...' is a scope exclusion. However, that exclusion is truncated mid-word, and no alternative tool or method-selection guidance (when to prefer worst-case over RSS) is given beyond what the schema already says.

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

All WritersLogic business agents toolsInspect
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