UETGPT

Calculate UET Taxila merit aggregate

calculate_merit_aggregate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when a user gives their SSC (matric), HSSC Part-I (FSc first year) and entry test (ECAT/TCAT) marks and wants their UET Taxila merit aggregate, eligibility, or which programs they might get. Applies the official 17% SSC + 50% HSSC Part-I + 33% entry test formula. Ask for any missing marks; never guess them. BS Mathematics and BS Physics have no entry test and use 30% SSC + 70% HSSC Part-I (basicSciencesAggregate); for those alone, pass 0 entry test marks if the user took no test. Returns aggregate and basicSciencesAggregate as percentages rounded to 3 decimals, the weighted components, HSSC percent, eligibility flags, and programs whose latest Category A closing merit is at or below the score (a past comparison, not an admission prediction). Marks above their total are capped at the total, so pass the real totals (for example hsscTotal 1100 for a DAE total) and confirm unusual inputs with the user. If the user gives full FSc marks out of 1100, ask for their Part-I marks instead. Deterministic and read-only. Do not use it for other universities' formulas.

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": {
      "sscMarks": "<sscMarks>",
      "hsscMarks": "<hsscMarks>",
      "entryTestMarks": "<entryTestMarks>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_merit_aggregate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sscMarks`	Yes	SSC (matric) marks obtained.
`sscTotal`	No	SSC total marks, usually 1100 (1200 on some boards).
`hsscMarks`	Yes	HSSC Part-I (FSc first year) marks obtained.
`hsscTotal`	No	HSSC Part-I total marks, usually 550.
`hafizOrNcc`	No	True only if the user says they are Hafiz-e-Quran or hold an NCC certificate (+20 HSSC marks for merit only, not for eligibility).
`entryTestMarks`	Yes	Entry test (ECAT or TCAT) marks obtained.
`entryTestTotal`	No	Entry test total marks, 400 for ECAT.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes
`formula`	Yes
`aggregate`	Yes
`meritNote`	Yes
`components`	Yes
`hsscPercent`	Yes
`comparedAgainst`	Yes
`formulaSourceUrl`	Yes
`hafizBonusApplied`	Yes
`basicSciencesFormula`	Yes
`basicSciencesAggregate`	Yes
`eligibleForEngineering`	Yes
`eligibleForCsMathPhysics`	Yes
`programsAtOrBelowLatestClosingMerit`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 4, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / basicSciencesAggregate
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / basicSciencesFormula
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "aggregate",
-  "components",
-  "hsscPercent",
-  "hafizBonusApplied",
-  "eligibleForEngineering",
-  "eligibleForCsMathPhysics",
-  "programsAtOrBelowLatestClosingMerit",
-  "comparedAgainst",
-  "formula",
-  "formulaSourceUrl",
-  "meritNote",
-  "note"
-]New value: +[
+  "aggregate",
+  "basicSciencesAggregate",
+  "components",
+  "hsscPercent",
+  "hafizBonusApplied",
+  "eligibleForEngineering",
+  "eligibleForCsMathPhysics",
+  "programsAtOrBelowLatestClosingMerit",
+  "comparedAgainst",
+  "formula",
+  "basicSciencesFormula",
+  "formulaSourceUrl",
+  "meritNote",
+  "note"
+]

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, it discloses capping of marks at their totals, three-decimal rounding, special handling of programs without an entry test, and the crucial caveat that closing-merit comparisons are historical rather than admission predictions. 'Deterministic and read-only' is consistent with the annotations, though partly redundant with them.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The use case and formula are front-loaded, and the dense description devotes its space to formulas, edge cases, input validation, and result interpretation. It is somewhat lengthy, and the return-value inventory plus 'read-only' statement overlap with structured fields, preventing a perfect conciseness score.

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 domain-specific calculation with seven parameters, the description covers the standard and exceptional formulas, missing-input handling, mark capping, output precision, eligibility context, and limits of the program comparison. Together with the complete input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, it supplies what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds important invocation semantics: pass zero entry-test marks for the specified basic-sciences-only case, provide real totals such as an 1100-mark DAE total, and do not substitute full FSc marks for Part-I marks. These instructions materially reduce the risk of plausible but incorrect calls.

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 precisely identifies the institution, calculation, required academic inputs, and related eligibility and program-comparison use cases. The official weighting formula and separate basic-sciences rule make its scope unmistakable and distinguish it from the sibling fee, program, and search tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says to use the tool when SSC, HSSC Part-I, and entry-test marks are supplied for a UET Taxila aggregate, eligibility, or program comparison, and not for other universities' formulas. It also gives actionable escalation rules: ask for missing marks, request Part-I marks instead of full FSc marks, and confirm unusual inputs.

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

All UETGPT tools Inspect

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

Need Help?