calc_board_footBoard feet and cost for hardwood or dimensional lumber. Formula: Board feet = thickness(in) × width(in) × length(ft) ÷ 12 × pieces (one board foot = 144 cubic inches).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quantity | No | Pieces; default 10 | |
| width_in | No | Width (in); default 6 | |
| length_ft | No | Length (ft); default 8 | |
| price_per_bf | No | Price per board foot (0 = skip) ($); default 0 | |
| thickness_in | No | Thickness (in); default 1 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context by disclosing the exact board-foot formula and the definition of one board foot, which helps the agent understand the computation without opening the schema.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the output and material use, followed by the exact formula. Every element earns its place and there is no filler.
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?
For a simple read-only calculator with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the computed outputs (board feet and cost), states the formula, and defines the board-foot unit. It could explicitly link cost to the price_per_bf parameter, but the schema covers that parameter and its default behavior.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving the formula that relates thickness, width, length, and pieces, and by mentioning 'cost' in relation to the price parameter. It clarifies units and the calculation, though it does not explicitly show the price_per_bf multiplication.
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 states a specific output (board feet and cost) and resource (hardwood or dimensional lumber), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling calculators like calc_deck_board or calc_flooring_tile, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
The description explains what is calculated but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It lacks when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or named siblings for comparison.
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.