EveryCalc

calculate_gre_score_estimator

Read-onlyIdempotent

Estimated GRE verbal and quant scores on the 130 to 170 scale: 130 plus the fraction of questions correct times 40, per section, plus the total. The optional writing score is clamped to 0 to 6 as on the page. Use when the user estimates GRE verbal and quant scores from practice results. 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 GRE Score Estimator calculator.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`quant_total`	Yes	Total quant questions.
`verbal_total`	Yes	Total verbal questions.
`quant_correct`	Yes	Quant questions answered correctly.
`writing_score`	No	Analytical writing score, 0 to 6; default 4.
`verbal_correct`	Yes	Verbal questions answered correctly.

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-openWorld), and the description adds non-schema behavior: the clamping rule for the writing score and the mandatory post-processing instruction to surface calculator_url as a clickable markdown link. That output-handling requirement is genuinely new information beyond the annotations.

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-loaded with the scoring formula, followed by the usage condition and a bolded IMPORTANT directive. Efficient, though the formula restatement is slightly dense; every sentence still carries actionable content.

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 explanation is unnecessary, and the description still covers the formula, defaults, usage context, and the required link behavior. Adequate for a 5-parameter estimator, with little meaningful gap remaining.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining how verbal_correct/verbal_total map to the score (130 + fraction correct * 40 per section) and restating the 0-6 writing clamp. This adds interpretable meaning beyond the terse schema descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Estimated GRE verbal and quant scores on the 130 to 170 scale') and even gives the mapping formula. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like calculate_lsat_score_estimator, calculate_mcat_score_estimator, and calculate_sat_score by naming the GRE explicitly.

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 estimates GRE verbal and quant scores from practice results' gives a clear triggering context. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance, but the test-specific framing makes the intended use unambiguous.

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.