Calculate the remainder of a division using a numerator and denominator. Use for finding leftover values; for several or chained operations, call batch_calc.
Returns the remainder of a division. 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the return value, but does not mention edge cases such as division by zero, negative operands, or floating-point behavior, which are relevant for a modulo operation.
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 purpose and followed by a clear alternative-tool hint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague wording.
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 simple two-parameter math function with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it states the operation's return and when to use the batch alternative. It omits edge-case behavior, but otherwise gives enough context to call the tool correctly.
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%, so the input schema already fully documents 'numerator' and 'denominator.' The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the remainder of a division.' It clearly identifies modulo behavior and distinguishes it from the sibling 'division' tool, which returns a quotient.
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 routes multi-step or chained calculations to 'batch_calc,' implying this tool is for single modulo operations. It does not enumerate exclusions for every sibling, but the context is clear for a simple arithmetic function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.