Divides the first number by the second to compute quotients from a numerator and denominator. Use for single division operations; try batch_calc for chained steps.
Divides the first number by the second. For several operations or chained steps in one call, use batch_calc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| numerator | Yes | The number being divided (numerator) | |
| denominator | Yes | The number to divide by (denominator) |
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 full behavioral burden. It states the operand order but says nothing about division-by-zero handling, error behavior, precision, or return format for a pure-computation tool. Minimal disclosure beyond the operation itself.
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, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the cross-tool routing placed second. Every sentence earns its place.
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 two-parameter, fully documented arithmetic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient to invoke correctly. The main remaining gap is undeclared division-by-zero behavior, which for a division tool is a foreseeable failure mode.
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 both parameters are already documented as numerator and denominator. The description's 'first number by the second' mirrors rather than extends that, 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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Divides the first number by the second') and even clarifies operand ordering, which is more than a tautology of the title. It routes to a sibling (batch_calc) for multi-step work. Sibling differentiation is otherwise only implicit in the operation name, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
It explicitly names the alternative (batch_calc) and the condition that selects it ('several operations or chained steps in one call'). That is clear when-to-use-alternative guidance. It omits any when-not or edge-case guidance (e.g., division by zero), keeping it out of the top band.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.