MaCalculatriceEnLigne

calculate_carbon_sequestration

Estimate CO2 sequestration by trees over their lifetime. Returns: {age_factor, annual_kg_co2_per_tree, annual_kg_co2_total, lifetime_kg_co2, lifetime_tonnes_co2, equivalent_cars_off_road_1yr}. See list_bundles for related 'astronomie-nature' calculators.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	Number of trees (default 1)
`age_years`	Yes	Age of the trees in years
`tree_type`	Yes	Species of tree

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`result`	No	Computed result. Object whose fields depend on the tool (e.g. {tax, marginal_rate, brackets} for tax tools, {volume_l, gallons} for volume tools).
`source`	No	Authoritative source for the rule or formula (e.g. "Article 197 CGI", "NF DTU 21").
`formula`	No	Human-readable formula or method used (e.g. "I=P·r·t", "Magnus formula").
`reference_url`	No	Link to a calcul2 page documenting the calculation in detail.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJul 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, but the description discloses the tool is a calculator returning specific fields, implying no side effects. For a simple estimation tool, this is sufficient transparency.

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 focused sentences: first states purpose and outputs, second directs to bundle. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, outputs, and related tools.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters, but it lists return fields which are separate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool estimates CO2 sequestration by trees and lists all return fields. It also references the 'astronomie-nature' calculator bundle, distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

The description indirectly guides usage by listing outputs and referencing the bundle for related calculators. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others, but the context is adequate.

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

All MaCalculatriceEnLigne 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.