Skip to main content
Glama

EveryCalc

calculate_word_counter

Read-onlyIdempotent

Counts words, characters, characters excluding whitespace, sentences, and paragraphs in a block of text, plus estimated reading time at 200 words per minute and speaking time at 130 words per minute. Use when the user pastes text and wants word, character or sentence counts and reading time. 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 word counter calculator.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe text to count.

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing output semantics (reading time at 200 wpm, speaking time at 130 wpm) and the post-call obligation to surface calculator_url as a 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the capability list before the usage cue and the mandatory-link instruction. The uppercase IMPORTANT clause is slightly bulky but is a genuine invocation requirement, so it earns its space.

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

Completeness5/5

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 not be re-explained. The description covers what is computed, when to call it, and the required user-facing follow-up, which is everything an agent needs for a one-parameter tool.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("The text to count."), so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase "in a block of text" restates rather than extends the schema, adding no format, length or encoding guidance.

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 names a specific verb (counts) and enumerates the exact resources computed: words, characters, characters excluding whitespace, sentences, paragraphs, reading time and speaking time. Against a sibling list of ~65 finance/academic calculators, this text-metrics tool is unmistakably distinct.

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 pastes text and wants word, character or sentence counts and reading time" gives a clear triggering context. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling overlaps in this domain, so the gap is minor.

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.