Rounds a number up to the nearest integer, returning the smallest whole value greater than or equal to the input. Use it to convert decimals upward in calculations.
Rounds a number up to the nearest integer. For several operations or chained steps in one call, use batch_calc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes | The number to round up |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It fully defines the transform (round upward to the nearest integer), which is the essential behavior for a pure function, but says nothing about return type, handling of negatives (e.g. -1.2 -> -1), or edge cases such as NaN/infinity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by the routing hint. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-argument pure math function with no output schema, the description plus schema cover everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only edge-case semantics (negative numbers, non-finite input) are absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as 'The number to round up'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and operation ('Rounds a number up to the nearest integer') that clearly separates it from siblings like floor and round. An agent can select it without inspecting any schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly routes multi-step or chained work to batch_calc, naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. It does not, however, contrast with round or floor, which is the main remaining differentiation question for a math tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.