calculateRun the Render cost calculator calculator: Wall area used; Low end of typical 2026 quotes; High end of typical 2026 quotes. Missing inputs fall back to their documented defaults.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | No | Wall area to render | |
| scaffold | No | Scaffold needed? | 1 |
| houseType | No | House type (sets a typical wall area) | 0 |
| renderType | No | Render system | monocouche |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is a calculator, that it produces a low and high quote range, and that omitted inputs are filled from documented defaults. While it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or 'no side effects', the calculator framing and output description make that reasonably clear.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, outputs, and default behavior without unnecessary elaboration. It loses a point for the redundant phrase 'calculator calculator' and the slightly choppy colon-separated output list.
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 four optional, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it tells the agent what outputs to expect and how missing inputs are handled. It could be stronger by clarifying the output format and explicitly routing between calculate and calculator_describe, but nothing essential is missing for invoking the tool correctly.
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%, so each parameter already has a name, default, and description. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond noting that defaults apply to missing inputs, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Run the Render cost calculator') and the resource, and it lists the expected outputs: wall area used plus low/high 2026 quote estimates. This distinguishes it from sibling describe/enquiry tools, which either explain the calculator or collect enquiries rather than performing the calculation.
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?
The description implies the tool should be used when the agent needs a render cost estimate, and it notes that missing inputs fall back to documented defaults. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to use instead, such as calculator_describe for explaining the calculator or submit_enquiry for submitting an enquiry.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: running the calculator, describing the calculator, describing the enquiry flow, listing enquiry fields, and submitting an enquiry. The descriptions reinforce these boundaries, so an agent should not confuse one tool with another.
Names are readable and use a shared domain vocabulary, but the patterns are mixed: 'calculate' is a bare verb, 'calculator_describe' and 'enquiry_describe' are noun-verb, while 'submit_enquiry' is verb-noun. This is inconsistent but still predictable enough to navigate.
Five tools is well-scoped for a small calculator/enquiry server. Each tool covers a necessary step in the workflow—calculation, description, field lookup, and submission—without unnecessary duplication or bloat.
The tool set fully covers the apparent domain: it lets agents understand the calculator, run it, understand the enquiry process, retrieve the required fields, and submit an enquiry with consent and confirmation. There are no obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps.