Rounds a number to the nearest integer. Use it to convert decimals to whole numbers in calculations, or rely on batch_calc for chained operations in a single call.
Rounds a number 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 |
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 disclosure burden. 'Nearest integer' does convey rounding direction, but tie-breaking (e.g. 0.5, negative halfway values) and behavior on non-finite input are unstated - meaningful for a rounding function.
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, purpose front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by routing to batch_calc. No 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 trivial one-parameter pure function with no output schema and no dangerous side effects, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only real omission is tie-breaking/edge-case semantics, which an agent might need for exact behavior.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The number to round'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, range, or type constraints beyond it, which is the expected baseline here.
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 resource ('Rounds a number to the nearest integer'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not differentiate against the closest siblings (floor, ceiling, int_convert), which also take a number and return an integer, so an agent must infer the distinction.
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 gives one explicit routing rule - use batch_calc for multiple or chained operations - which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about when to prefer round over floor/ceiling/int_convert, the ambiguity an agent is most likely to face in this sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.