Skip to main content
Glama

cocomo_estimate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Estimate software project effort in person-months using COCOMO II adapted for LLM-specific factors like reasoning complexity and human oversight.

Instructions

LLM-adapted COCOMO II parametric effort estimation.

Replaces traditional 17 human-labor cost drivers with 5 LLM-specific factors: reasoning complexity, context completeness, transformation impact, iterative cycles, and human oversight. Returns both nominal and LLM-adjusted person-months.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
klocYesEstimated thousands of lines of code. Count actual code, not comments/blank lines.
reasoning_complexityNoMultiplier for reasoning complexity of the codebase. 0.5 = trivial CRUD, 1.0 = average, 2.0 = novel algorithm/R&D.
context_completenessNoHow complete is the context provided to the LLM? 0.5 = exhaustive specs, 1.0 = typical, 2.0 = vague requirements.
transformation_impactNoScale of transformation relative to existing code. 0.5 = small patch, 1.0 = new module, 2.0 = architectural rewrite.
iterative_cyclesNoIteration overhead multiplier or literal cycle count. Multiplier scale: 0.5 = one-shot, 1.0 = typical debug loop, 2.0 = heavy back-and-forth. Values above 2.0 are accepted as literal cycle counts and normalized internally.
human_oversightNoHuman review overhead multiplier. 0.5 = auto-merged, 1.0 = standard PR review, 2.0 = compliance/security review.
task_typeNoOptional task type for feedback matching.
ai_nativeNoDegree of AI assistance: 0.0 = fully human, 1.0 = fully AI-native, 0.5 = hybrid. Accepts boolean for backward compatibility (true=1.0, false=0.0).
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns nominal and LLM-adjusted person-months but does not elaborate on side effects, authorization needs, or other behavioral traits beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose, and the second provides key adaptation details and outputs. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having 8 parameters and no output schema, the description only vaguely mentions returning 'person-months' without specifying the exact output structure (e.g., object with fields, single float). This is a significant gap for a complex estimation 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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the tool description adds no additional semantic value. The schema already explains each parameter's purpose, range, and defaults.

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 clearly states it is an 'LLM-adapted COCOMO II parametric effort estimation' tool, replacing traditional cost drivers with LLM-specific factors. It specifies the output (nominal and adjusted person-months) and distinguishes itself from sibling estimation tools like cocomo_ground_truth and pert_estimate by its focus on LLM adaptation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for estimating LLM development effort but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pert_estimate or token_cost_estimate. No exclusion criteria or prerequisite conditions are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/KyaniteLabs/Epoch'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server