Convert energy values between joules, kilojoules, calories, kilocalories, watt-hours, kilowatt-hours, and BTU. Provide the numeric value, source unit, and target unit to get the conversion.
Convert energy: j/kj ↔ cal/kcal ↔ wh/kwh ↔ btu. Input: value, from, to.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| from | Yes | ||
| value | 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion action and input format but does not disclose whether conversions are case-sensitive, what unit string formats are accepted (e.g., 'j' vs 'J', 'kj' vs 'kJ'), whether the operation is read-only, or what the output format looks like. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that depends on exact string matching.
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 the core purpose ('Convert energy'), followed by the supported unit families and the required input shape. Every sentence earns its place, though the input format sentence is slightly terse and could be integrated more naturally.
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?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is under-specified. An agent needs to know the exact accepted unit strings, whether the conversion is bidirectional, and what the result format is. The description provides the unit families but leaves critical invocation details unspecified.
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 for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description names the three parameters ('value, from, to') and implies their roles, but it does not explain the expected unit string formats, the range/type of value, or the meaning of 'from' and 'to' beyond the obvious. This is minimal compensation for a schema with zero descriptions.
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 states a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('energy') with the supported unit families (j/kj, cal/kcal, wh/kwh, btu). It clearly distinguishes from sibling converters by naming the energy unit types, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling 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?
The description implies usage by listing the required inputs ('Input: value, from, to'), which tells an agent what to provide. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over other converters or provide any exclusion criteria, leaving usage context mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.