NBMEcalc MCP

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

The description discloses that the result is not an official conversion or examination guarantee, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not elaborate on how the conversion works, what limitations exist, or what the 'independent educational estimate' means. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only partially meets it.

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?

The description is exactly two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and a necessary caveat in the second sentence. There is no filler or redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, no annotations, and minimal schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention the return value, any input constraints, or the conversion logic. An agent would lack crucial details for correct invocation.

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 only 25% (only 'form' has a description). The tool description does not explain any parameters such as 'source', 'step', or 'score', and fails to compensate for the low schema coverage. An agent is left without meaning for the enums or the numeric inputs.

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 clearly states the tool converts a practice-assessment score into an independent educational estimate, using a specific verb and object. It also clarifies it is not an official conversion, which adds precision. No siblings exist to differentiate, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions or context. The description only states what it does without any situational cues. Even without siblings, there is no explicit usage direction.

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