DXRating

Calculate Best 50 rating

calculate_best50

Read-onlyIdempotent

A maimai DX player's rating from their scores: the new 15 (b15) and old 35 (b35), with each chart's rating, and the scores whose next rank would raise the rating most. Achievements are integers in 1/10000 of a percent: 100.7543% is 1007543.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scores`	Yes	The scores of the player, up to 300; of a chart given twice the better one counts
`server`	No	Game server the player plays on: jp (default), intl, usa or cn
`version`	No	Game version whose new charts make the new 15 (b15): PRiSM PLUS. Default: the newest on the server.
`suggestions`	No	Most suggestions of scores to improve, 0 to 50. Default 10.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`b15`	Yes	Best 15 of the charts of the current version (and, since CiRCLE, the version before)
`b35`	Yes	Best 35 of the older charts
`rating`	Yes	The rating of the player: the total of b15 and b35
`server`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`version`	Yes	Game version of the new 15
`dataAsOf`	Yes	When the catalog was last updated
`unmatched`	Yes	Scores not counted, with why
`suggestions`	Yes	Scores to improve, by the gain of the next rank that raises the rating, highest first

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 3, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / source / properties / license

Removed value: -{
-  "const": "CC BY-NC 4.0",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / source / properties / licenseUrl
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / source / required

Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "url",
-  "license",
-  "licenseUrl",
-  "attribution"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "url",
+  "attribution"
+]

First observedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds only the achievement unit encoding (1/10000 of a percent) and does not say what happens with unresolvable song names, whether lookups are case-sensitive, or how partial score lists are handled.

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?

Two sentences, both dense with substance and no filler; the unit caveat is placed last where it is needed. The opening is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led sentence, which makes it slightly less scannable, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description correctly focuses on inputs and computation. However, for a calculation tool that overlaps with a sibling, the omission of how it differs from calculate_rating and of tie-breaking or missing-chart behavior leaves a real gap.

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 every parameter is already documented inline, including the achievement encoding and enum values, which the description partly repeats. The description adds no new meaning for 'server', 'version' beyond what the schema states, or 'suggestions' beyond the default of 10.

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 description names the specific domain object (a maimai DX player's Best 50 rating) and enumerates the concrete outputs: b15, b35, per-chart ratings, and ranked improvement suggestions. That is far beyond restating the title, but it never distinguishes this from the sibling calculate_rating, which is the obvious source of agent confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus calculate_rating, no prerequisite about needing a complete score list, and no explanation of the tradeoff when to raise or lower 'suggestions'. Usage must be inferred entirely from the description of what is computed.

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

All DXRating 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.