hcl-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

compliance

Evaluate lighting measurements against standards like WELL, EN 12464-1, and ISO CIE, returning compliance results for illuminance, glare, and circadian metrics.

Instructions

Check a value against a lighting standard.

standard: well_v2_l03 | brown_2022 | iso_cie_8995_1_2025 | en_17037 | en_12464_1 | ul_24480.

CIRCADIAN standards are scored on mel_edi (CIE S 026 mel-EDI -- NOT melanopic_lux, which is larger by D65's melanopic/photopic ratio ~1.10 and would silently relax the threshold); eml is accepted and converted. EML is the LARGER number -- EML = mel-EDI * 1.103 -- so an eml input is DIVIDED by 1.103 to score it. Pass ONE of them: if both are given, mel_edi wins, eml is discarded without warning, and the result is stamped quantity "mel_edi" with no trace of the ignored input. To go the other way, from mel-EDI to EML, use spectral_metrics(eml_edi_value=..., eml_edi_direction='medi_to_eml'); do not do the arithmetic by hand. en_17037 returns "n/a" (daylight-provision, non-circadian) and ul_24480 returns "unsupported" (Circadian Stimulus, not computed here).

standard="en_12464_1" is the ELECTRIC VISUAL-TASK path and ignores mel_edi entirely: pass task (see EN_12464_1_TASKS / the hcl://compliance/en_12464_1 resource) plus the measured em/ugr/uo/ra, and optionally the surround/background (em_surround, uo_surround, em_background, uo_background) and wall/ceiling/cylindrical (em_wall, uo_wall, em_ceiling, uo_ceiling, em_cylindrical, uo_cylindrical) values -- each relationship is evaluated only when supplied. Supplying the task but no measured values returns "incomplete", never a vacuous "pass".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`em`	No
`ra`	No
`uo`	No
`eml`	No
`ugr`	No
`task`	No
`period`	No	daytime
`em_wall`	No
`mel_edi`	No
`uo_wall`	No
`standard`	No	brown_2022
`em_ceiling`	No
`uo_ceiling`	No
`em_surround`	No
`uo_surround`	No
`daylight_met`	No
`em_background`	No
`uo_background`	No
`em_cylindrical`	No
`uo_cylindrical`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the mel_edi vs eml precedence (mel_edi wins, eml discarded without warning), the conversion factor (eml = mel_edi * 1.103, so eml is divided by 1.103), the output quantity stamping, and the behavior for en_17037 and ul_24480. This is exceptionally transparent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but well-organized into logical paragraphs (circadian vs electric visual, edge standards). Every sentence contributes necessary information, but it could be tightened slightly (e.g., the conversion explanation is repeated in a few places). Still above average.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers all parameter groups and explains edge-case return values. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to describe return format. For a 20-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter group: mel_edi/eml for circadian, em/ugr/uo/ra plus surround/background/wall/ceiling/cylindrical for electric visual, and the task parameter. It also clarifies the conversion factor and precedence, adding meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a clear verb ('check') and resource ('a value against a lighting standard'), then lists the accepted standards. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like circadian_metrics and spectral_metrics by focusing on compliance checking rather than metric computation or spectral conversion.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly contrasts the circadian path (mel_edi/eml) with the electric visual-task path (en_12464_1), notes which standards return 'n/a' or 'unsupported', and directs users to spectral_metrics for the reverse conversion. It also explains the condition under which en_12464_1 returns 'incomplete' instead of a vacuous pass.

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