EveryCalc

calculate_act_score

Read-onlyIdempotent

Composite, STEM, and ELA scores from the four ACT section scores, each clamped to 1 to 36 exactly as the page does. The composite is the rounded average of the four sections. Use when the user has ACT section scores and wants the composite, STEM and ELA scores. IMPORTANT: always show the calculator_url from the result as a clickable markdown link in your answer to the user, so they can open the interactive ACT Score calculator.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`math`	Yes	Math section score, 1 to 36 (clamped and rounded as on the page).
`english`	Yes	English section score, 1 to 36 (clamped and rounded as on the page).
`reading`	Yes	Reading section score, 1 to 36 (clamped and rounded as on the page).
`science`	Yes	Science section score, 1 to 36 (clamped and rounded as on the page).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	True when the calculation succeeded.
`note`	Yes	Disclaimer that accompanies every result.
`tool`	Yes	Name of the tool that ran.
`inputs`	No	The normalized inputs the calculation used.
`results`	Yes	The computed figures for this calculator.
`calculator_url`	Yes	Deep link to the matching interactive calculator on everycalc.xyz.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 21, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / note

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Disclaimer that accompanies every result.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "ok",
-  "tool",
-  "results",
-  "calculator_url"
-]New value: +[
+  "ok",
+  "tool",
+  "results",
+  "calculator_url",
+  "note"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedOct 17, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "calculator_url": {
+      "description": "Deep link to the matching interactive calculator on everycalc.xyz.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "inputs": {
+      "description": "The normalized inputs the calculation used.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "True when the calculation succeeded.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "description": "The computed figures for this calculator.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "description": "Name of the tool that ran.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "tool",
+    "results",
+    "calculator_url"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: inputs are clamped to 1-36, the composite is the rounded average of the four sections, and the result's calculator_url must be surfaced as a clickable markdown link.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is computed before the usage condition and the output-link instruction. Every sentence carries load, though the IMPORTANT-caps link directive is slightly verbose in phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary. For a simple deterministic 4-input calculator with full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly, though it does not explain how STEM and ELA are derived (a minor omission).

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% and all four required section parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description restates the clamping/rounding rule, which marginally reinforces the schema but adds no format or range information beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: computes ACT composite, STEM, and ELA scores from the four section scores. This clearly separates it from adjacent siblings such as calculate_sat_score, calculate_psat_score, and calculate_ap_exam_score, which target different exams.

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?

"Use when the user has ACT section scores and wants the composite, STEM and ELA scores" gives a clear triggering condition. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, but the condition is unambiguous enough that an agent won't misroute.

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

All EveryCalc 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.