TuneWorks

Race Fuel and Minimum Weight Calculator

calculate_race_fuel_and_weight

Read-only

Plan a race fuel load, reserve, start weight, and projected minimum-weight margin. Calculates from measured inputs without authentication and does not read or save account data. Assumes the entered per-lap consumption applies to race, formation, and allowance laps. Finish weight retains only the selected reserve. Confirm your series weighing rules and validate consumption with real data.

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": {
      "consumption": "<consumption>",
      "formationLaps": "<formationLaps>",
      "extraLaps": "<extraLaps>",
      "reserve": "<reserve>",
      "baseWeight": "<baseWeight>",
      "minimumWeight": "<minimumWeight>",
      "ballast": "<ballast>",
      "raceMode": "<raceMode>",
      "fuel": "<fuel>",
      "unitSystem": "<unitSystem>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_race_fuel_and_weight"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fuel`	Yes	Fuel type
`ballast`	Yes	Ballast fitted (lb in US; kg in metric)
`lapTime`	No	Expected lap time (sec)
`reserve`	Yes	Fuel reserve (%)
`duration`	No	Race duration (min)
`raceLaps`	No	Scheduled race laps (laps)
`raceMode`	Yes	Race format
`extraLaps`	Yes	Extra-lap allowance (laps)
`baseWeight`	Yes	Car + driver without fuel (lb in US; kg in metric)
`unitSystem`	Yes	Units for all inputs and results, as specified on each field.
`consumption`	Yes	Fuel consumption per lap (gal in US; L in metric)
`customDensity`	No	Custom fuel density (lb/gal in US; kg/L in metric)
`formationLaps`	Yes	Formation / warm-up laps (laps)
`minimumWeight`	Yes	Class minimum weight (lb in US; kg in metric)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`note`	No
`tool`	Yes	TuneWorks MCP tool name that produced this result.
`inputs`	No
`result`	No
`status`	Yes	Stable result status such as ok, created, updated, sent, auth_required, or confirmation_required.
`message`	No
`outcome`	No	Optional domain outcome for an otherwise successful read.
`results`	No
`unitSystem`	No
`volumeUnit`	No
`authenticationRequired`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / outcome

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional domain outcome for an otherwise successful read.",
+  "enum": [
+    "no_vehicles",
+    "vehicle_not_found",
+    "vehicle_selection_required",
+    "no_data"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / status / description

Previous value: -"Result status such as ok, created, updated, sent, auth_required, or confirmation_required."New value: +"Stable result status such as ok, created, updated, sent, auth_required, or confirmation_required."

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false; the description adds genuinely new context: no authentication needed, no account data read or saved, the consumption assumption extended to formation and allowance laps, and that finish weight retains only the selected reserve. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by behavior, assumptions, and a caution. Each sentence carries information; the only mild redundancy is the safety restatement that annotations already cover.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only 14-parameter calculator with an output schema, the description covers what it computes, its scope (no auth, no account data), and its modeling assumptions. Minor gaps remain around timed-vs-laps mode interactions (duration vs raceLaps), but the schema documents those fields.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic content: it states that the entered per-lap consumption is applied to race, formation, and allowance laps, and that reserve selection determines retained finish weight. Those clarifications tie parameters together in a way the flat schema cannot.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence names concrete outputs – race fuel load, reserve, start weight, and projected minimum-weight margin – which is a specific verb+resource statement rather than a restatement of the title. It is clearly separable from siblings like calculate_ethanol_blend or calculate_fuel_injector_size, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 purpose and by the closing caution to 'confirm your series weighing rules and validate consumption with real data', but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative tool. An agent can infer this is the planning calculator, not a lookup, but must infer it.

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

All TuneWorks 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?