Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

rust.wiki

by wiki.rust
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Giant Excavator, quarries and pump jack: output and run time for your diesel

calculate_excavator
Read-onlyIdempotent

Giant Excavator, quarries and pump jack: output and run time for your diesel. The excavator page's maths (https://rust.wiki/calculators/excavator): run time and output for the diesel. The Giant Excavator's yields per diesel are Facepunch's own (December 2021); the monument quarries' and pump jack's come from community guides (confidence). Vanilla server rates.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "calculate_excavator"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dieselNoDiesel fuel.
machineNoMachine key or name (left out = every machine's rates): excavator_stone, excavator_metal, excavator_sulfur, excavator_hqm, quarry_sulfur, quarry_stone, quarry_hqm, pumpjack.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world calculation, so the safety bar is low. The description goes beyond them by disclosing data provenance — Facepunch's December 2021 yields for the excavator versus community guides (with a `confidence` field) for quarries and pump jack — which lets an agent judge result trustworthiness.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence duplicates the title verbatim, and 'run time and output for the diesel' is effectively stated twice in the first two sentences. The provenance detail earns its place, but the redundant framing wastes space before the useful information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-optional-parameter calculator with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what is computed, the scope (vanilla rates), and data-source confidence. Only the shape of the returned result is left implicit, which is a minor gap for a deterministic calculator.

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 description coverage is 100%, with diesel bounds/default and the full machine key list already documented in the schema. The description adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond restating that results are per-diesel and that yield sources differ by machine, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 exact resource and computed quantities: output and run time for diesel across Giant Excavator, monument quarries, and pump jack. It is specific enough for an agent to recognise the calculator's domain, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with neighbours like calculate_recycle_yield or calculate_craft_cost.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not routing or named alternative; guidance is only implied by the domain (diesel-driven resource machines). 'Vanilla server rates' functions as a mild applicability constraint, signalling results do not cover modded rates, but nothing tells the agent when another calculator is the better choice.

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

All rust.wiki toolsInspect
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.

Resources