Utility Matrix

Apdex Score Calculator

apdex-score-calculator

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when a user asks about their Apdex score or wants to measure user satisfaction with response times. Takes satisfied, tolerating, and total request counts; satisfied plus tolerating may not exceed total. Returns the Apdex score (0–1) and its rating on the published five-band scale: excellent, good, fair, poor or unacceptable.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`total`	Yes	All requests in the sample, including frustrated ones (slower than 4T or failed).
`satisfied`	Yes	Requests answered within the target threshold T.
`tolerating`	Yes	Requests answered between T and 4T.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rating`	Yes
`next_step`	Yes
`apdex_score`	Yes
`rating_band`	Yes
`next_step_url`	Yes
`satisfied_pct`	Yes
`total_samples`	Yes
`why_follow_up`	Yes
`frustrated_pct`	Yes
`interpretation`	Yes
`tolerating_pct`	Yes
`affiliate_context`	No
`computation_basis`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed11 schema fields changedOct 11, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / satisfied / description

Previous value: -"satisfied used by this deterministic tool."New value: +"Requests answered within the target threshold T."

changedInput schema / properties / satisfied / examples
```
Previous value: -[
-  1
-]New value: +[
+  850
+]
```

changedInput schema / properties / tolerating / description

Previous value: -"tolerating used by this deterministic tool."New value: +"Requests answered between T and 4T."

changedInput schema / properties / tolerating / examples
```
Previous value: -[
-  1
-]New value: +[
+  100
+]
```

changedInput schema / properties / total / description

Previous value: -"Total number of requests observed in the measurement window."New value: +"All requests in the sample, including frustrated ones (slower than 4T or failed)."

changedInput schema / properties / total / examples

Previous value: -[
-  1
-]New value: +[
+  1000
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / frustrated_pct
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / rating_band
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / tolerating_pct
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / total_samples
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "apdex_score",
-  "computation_basis",
-  "interpretation",
-  "next_step",
-  "next_step_url",
-  "rating",
-  "satisfied_pct",
-  "why_follow_up"
-]New value: +[
+  "apdex_score",
+  "computation_basis",
+  "frustrated_pct",
+  "interpretation",
+  "next_step",
+  "next_step_url",
+  "rating",
+  "rating_band",
+  "satisfied_pct",
+  "tolerating_pct",
+  "total_samples",
+  "why_follow_up"
+]

Changed8 schema fields changedSep 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / satisfied / description

Added value: +"satisfied used by this deterministic tool."

addedInput schema / properties / satisfied / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  1
+]
```

addedInput schema / properties / tolerating / description

Added value: +"tolerating used by this deterministic tool."

addedInput schema / properties / tolerating / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  1
+]
```

addedInput schema / properties / total / description

Added value: +"Total number of requests observed in the measurement window."

addedInput schema / properties / total / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  1
+]
```
addedOutput schema / properties / computation_basis
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "apdex_score",
-  "interpretation",
-  "next_step",
-  "next_step_url",
-  "rating",
-  "satisfied_pct",
-  "why_follow_up"
-]New value: +[
+  "apdex_score",
+  "computation_basis",
+  "interpretation",
+  "next_step",
+  "next_step_url",
+  "rating",
+  "satisfied_pct",
+  "why_follow_up"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedJul 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "affiliate_context": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "affiliate": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "cta_label": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "disclosure": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "framing": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "posture": {
+          "enum": [
+            "secondary"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "slot_id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "url": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "variant": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "affiliate",
+        "cta_label",
+        "disclosure",
+        "framing",
+        "posture",
+        "slot_id",
+        "url",
+        "variant"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "apdex_score": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "interpretation": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "next_step": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "next_step_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "rating": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "satisfied_pct": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "why_follow_up": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "apdex_score",
+    "interpretation",
+    "next_step",
+    "next_step_url",
+    "rating",
+    "satisfied_pct",
+    "why_follow_up"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedJul 13, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
First observedJun 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint beyond that: 'satisfied plus tolerating may not exceed total', which tells the agent about an input invariant it must respect.

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?

Two sentences: the trigger first, then inputs/constraint and output. Nothing is redundant and it is front-loaded with the usage condition.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes what comes back (score 0–1 plus five-band rating), and the input invariant is covered. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% (baseline 3), and the description goes further by stating the cross-parameter constraint that satisfied + tolerating cannot exceed total, which no single property description in the schema expresses.

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 verb and resource ('Apdex score calculator') and frames the outcome it produces (user satisfaction with response times). Among the many *-calculator siblings, the Apdex domain is unambiguous, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit triggering condition: 'Use this when a user asks about their Apdex score or wants to measure user satisfaction with response times.' That is clear context, though it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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

All Utility Matrix tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?