Skip to main content
Glama

EveryCalc

calculate_gpa_planner

Read-onlyIdempotent

Term GPA required over the planned credits to reach a target cumulative GPA, the maximum reachable cumulative GPA with straight As, and the grade mix the required GPA implies, using the page thresholds. Use when the user asks what term GPA they need to reach a target cumulative GPA. 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 GPA Planner calculator.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
target_gpaYesTarget cumulative GPA.
current_gpaYesCurrent cumulative GPA.
current_creditsYesCredit hours already completed.
planned_creditsYesCredit hours planned this term.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesTrue when the calculation succeeded.
noteYesDisclaimer that accompanies every result.
toolYesName of the tool that ran.
inputsNoThe normalized inputs the calculation used.
resultsYesThe computed figures for this calculator.
calculator_urlYesDeep link to the matching interactive calculator on everycalc.xyz.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • 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"
      +]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that results use 'page thresholds' and, critically, mandates surfacing the calculator_url as a clickable markdown link in the answer, which no structured field conveys.

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?

Front-loads the computed outputs, then the usage trigger, then the IMPORTANT output-handling instruction. Every sentence earns its place, though the opening clause is dense enough to require a second read.

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 values need no explanation, and the description still flags the notable return field (calculator_url) and its required presentation. The only soft spot is the unexplained reference to 'page thresholds,' but it does not block correct invocation.

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 four well-labeled numeric parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description implies how the inputs combine (current vs. planned credits, current vs. target GPA) but adds no syntax, ranges, or format constraints beyond the schema.

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 computation and enumerates the exact outputs: required term GPA, max reachable cumulative GPA, and the implied grade mix. This clearly separates it from the sibling calculate_gpa, which computes a current GPA rather than a forward-looking target plan.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when the user asks what term GPA they need to reach a target cumulative GPA.' That is a clear context for selection, though it names no alternative tool or exclusion case (e.g. planning vs. simply computing an existing GPA).

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.