EcoCarbonWiki

wiki_calc

Compute EXACT numbers for a chosen setup. For a RECIPE: labor calories, craft time, per-ingredient counts and throughput at a given skill level + upgrade module + talents. For a FOOD item: its STATIC calories/nutrition (eating never changes these) PLUS an estimated XP / skill-gain rate from the diet inputs (balanced/variety/tastiness/housing). For a TOOL/WEAPON: damage, calories-per-use, durability-per-use at the tool's governing-skill level + talents. For a MINEABLE BLOCK: per-block calorie/durability cost (for a representative pickaxe), yield, and calories-per-stack at a mining-skill level + talents. For a SPECIES: harvest yields recomputed with the reader's harvest-yield talents. Omit a lever to leave it at base; the response lists the available modules/talents/skill (with each talent's effect text) so you can pick valid ones and explain what changed. Optional 'server' override models a different server's difficulty (recipes honor craftResource/craftTime; mining/species honor their relevant settings; food honors foodVariety/foodTastiness).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	A recipe, food-item, or species slug (from wiki_search).
`module`	No	Upgrade-module name or tier number (recipes only); lowers craft time/materials.
`server`	No	Model a DIFFERENT server by overriding its difficulty/feature settings (default = THIS server's real settings, so omit for accurate answers). Fields: craftResource (× ingredient cost), craftTime (× craft time), growth (× plant growth/maturity), garbageRatio (Update 14 craft-waste ratio, 0..1; scales recipe garbage byproducts), fuelEfficiency (× every fuel item's fuel value), foodVariety (bool), foodTastiness (bool), baseGain (flat XP/day floor), minBalanced/maxBalanced (balanced-diet multiplier range for food XP).
`housing`	No	Food only: your housing XP contribution (additive to the skill-gain rate; default 0).
`talents`	No	Talent names to treat as learned (recipes/tools/mining/species yields).
`variety`	No	Food only: your current food-variety bonus multiplier (default 1).
`balanced`	No	Food only: assume a balanced diet (max balanced-diet bonus) vs this food alone.
`tastiness`	No	Food only: your current food-tastiness bonus multiplier (default 1).
`skill_level`	No	Governing-skill level (recipes/tools/mining); lowers labor / tunes stats.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it specifies exactly what is computed for each entity type (labor calories, craft time, XP, damage, yields), how parameters affect results, and that the response lists available modules/talents/skill with effect text. This goes well beyond a generic 'computes values' statement.

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 long but information-dense and well-structured by entity type. The opening sentence front-loads the core purpose, and every subsequent clause adds specific calculation behavior without fluff, earning its place.

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?

The tool is complex (9 params, nested server object, no output schema), yet the description covers all entity types, parameter scoping, server-override semantics, and even hints at response content by saying it lists available modules/talents/skill. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds significant meaning by mapping parameters to entity types (e.g., skill_level for recipes/tools/mining, housing/variety/balanced/tastiness for food). It also explains that omitted levers use base values and that the response helps the user pick valid options, which aids correct parameter selection.

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 opens with 'Compute EXACT numbers for a chosen setup' and then enumerates specific outputs for recipes, food, tools, mineable blocks, and species. This clear verb+resource scope distinguishes it from sibling fetch/search/aggregate tools, which focus on retrieval rather than calculation.

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 clear operational context per entity type (e.g., 'Omit a lever to leave it at base' and 'Omit for accurate answers' regarding server override). However, it never explicitly names sibling alternatives or states when not to use this tool, so it lacks the full 'when/when-not' guidance needed for a 5.

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

All EcoCarbonWiki 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes (fetch, wiki_get, wiki_rank, wiki_calc, etc.), but search and wiki_search are clearly duplicated full-text search tools, and fetch vs wiki_get could be confused initially. Descriptions help but the overlap is notable.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: 'fetch' and 'search' lack the 'wiki_' prefix used by others, and there is a mix of verb-based (get, rank, calc) and noun-based (bom, contract_basics) names. Having both 'search' and 'wiki_search' for the same functionality is a clear naming violation.

Tool Count4/5

10 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range for a wiki server, covering search, retrieval, analytics, and recipe calculations. However, one tool is essentially redundant (search vs wiki_search), making the count slightly padded.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core wiki workflow: search, fetch markdown, read structured facts, rank/aggregate numeric data, and compute recipe-related metrics (BOM, raw materials, exact calc). Minor gaps like listing all entities of a kind without ranking, but overall no dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?