Calculate CO2e emissions for up to 100 activities in a single request. Each item is resolved in parallel. Items that fail validation or are not found return per-item errors without failing the whole batch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| calculations | Yes | Array of up to 100 activity calculations |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing parallel execution and per-item error handling without failing the batch. It does not, however, mention authentication, rate limits, or the exact success response structure.
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 core purpose and followed by behavior. Every clause earns its place; no fluff.
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?
The description covers purpose, batch size, parallelism, and partial-failure behavior, which is substantial for a tool with no annotations and no output schema. The main omissions are a pointer to list_activity_types for valid activity_type slugs and a description of the successful result structure.
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% (id, year, country, quantity, activity_type all documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema.
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 opens with a specific verb-object pair ('Calculate CO2e emissions') and scopes it to a batch of up to 100 activities, clearly distinguishing it from the single-item sibling tool calculate_emissions_activity.
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?
It clearly establishes the batch use case (up to 100 activities, parallel resolution) and the partial-failure mode, making it evident when an agent should choose this over the single-activity tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
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.