Convert raw scores to Chilean grades (1.0-7.0) with a configurable passing threshold. Simplify rubric-based grading by automating the conversion.
Convierte un puntaje a nota chilena de 1,0 a 7,0 con exigencia (60 % por defecto o la del perfil). Úsala al corregir con pauta, en vez de calcular a mano.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maximo | Yes | ||
| puntaje | Yes | ||
| exigencia | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the default exigencia (60%) and that it can use the profile's exigencia, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention error cases (e.g., puntaje > maximo), rounding behavior, or the exact conversion formula, leaving uncertainty about edge cases. It does convey the core calculation intent.
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?
The description is a compact two-sentence structure. The first sentence states the core purpose and key parameters, and the second provides usage guidance. No filler or redundancy. The main action is front-loaded.
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 calculation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should explain the conversion logic sufficiently. It does not define maximo, nor does it explain how exigencia affects the result (e.g., threshold for passing). The exact formula is left ambiguous. While it is clear on the input and output range, the mechanics are incomplete, making it hard for an agent to verify correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'puntaje' and 'exigencia' but omits 'maximo' entirely. The schema defines the parameters but their meaning beyond names is not explained. The description adds context for exigencia (default and profile) but fails to explain maximo, leaving the agent to infer its role. This is a significant gap.
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 clearly states the verb 'Convierte' (converts) with a specific resource (puntaje to nota) and defines the output range (1.0 to 7.0). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a calculation tool, unlike the others which are about searching, planning, or recording. The mention of 'exigencia' adds precision.
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 says when to use it: 'al corregir con pauta' (when correcting with a rubric), and contrasts with manual calculation ('en vez de calcular a mano'). While it doesn't list alternative tools or when not to use it, the context is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.