Calculate daily protein, carbs, and fat grams from your target calories and preferred percentage split, using balanced, keto, low-carb, or high-protein presets.
Protein/carbs/fat grams from target calories and percentage split. Presets: balanced, keto, low-carb, high-protein.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fatPercent | No | ||
| carbsPercent | No | ||
| proteinPercent | No | ||
| targetCalories | Yes |
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, but it only states the basic calculation. It does not disclose what happens when percentages are omitted, whether they must sum to 100, which ranges are valid, or how presets map to percentages.
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 compact and front-loaded, with two short sentences and no filler. It loses a point only because it is slightly too terse to carry its required semantic load.
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?
The description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. Critical details are missing: default behavior for percent parameters, preset selection mechanism, percent validation, and what the returned grams represent.
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, but it only mentions 'target calories' and 'percentage split' generally. It does not explain fatPercent, carbsPercent, proteinPercent, their allowed ranges, or how presets relate to these parameters.
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 identifies the tool's function: converting target calories and percentage splits into protein/carbs/fat grams. The mention of presets also hints at distinct behavior from sibling calculators, though it doesn't name any alternative.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus the many sibling calculators. It does not mention prerequisites, how to select a preset, or when manual percentages should be supplied instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.