EveryCalc

calculate_sat_score

Read-onlyIdempotent

Estimated SAT section scores: 200 plus the fraction correct times 600, using the page fixed totals of 54 reading and writing questions and 44 math questions, plus the total and the page competitiveness band. Use when the user estimates SAT section 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 SAT Score calculator.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`math_correct`	Yes	Math questions answered correctly, out of 44.
`reading_writing_correct`	Yes	Reading and writing questions answered correctly, out of 54.

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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, idempotent calculation, so the bar is low. The description adds real value beyond them: the scoring formula, the fields returned (total and competitiveness band), and a non-obvious output-handling requirement to render calculator_url 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?

The first sentence front-loads the formula and totals, then usage, then the imperative output instruction. It's dense but every sentence earns its place; the opening sentence is slightly overloaded with arithmetic detail but remains purposeful.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description still mentions the total, band, and calculator_url. An agent has enough to invoke correctly and to fulfill the linking instruction; only the PSAT/ACT disambiguation is left implicit.

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, and the description reinforces the meaning with the fixed totals (54 reading/writing, 44 math) and explains how the inputs are combined into a score. It adds formula context beyond the raw parameter docs, though it repeats some schema detail.

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 a specific resource (SAT section scores) and even gives the exact scoring formula (200 + fraction correct × 600) with the fixed question totals. It's distinctly SAT-focused, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the close sibling calculate_psat_score or calculate_act_score.

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 SAT section scores from practice results" gives a clear triggering context. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. PSAT vs SAT, practice vs official scores), so it's clear context without routing.

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.