Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tool-mcp-server

tool-mcp-server

by maple-awa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

tool_bmi

Calculate Body Mass Index (BMI) from weight in kilograms and height in meters to get the BMI value and its category.

Instructions

[utility] BMI

Parameters:

  • weight (number): Weight (kg)

  • height (number): Height (m)

Outputs:

  • bmi (number): BMI

  • category (string): Category

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tool_bmi"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bmiNoBMI
heightNoHeight (m)
weightNoWeight (kg)
categoryNoCategory

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, if it has side effects, or how it handles invalid input. It only lists inputs/outputs without elaborating on behavior beyond the calculation.

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 is succinct and well-structured: a label, then clear lists of parameters and outputs. It contains no unnecessary words and is easy to parse.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple utility tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently specifies the required inputs and expected outputs. It could go further by explaining category values (e.g., 'underweight', 'normal'), but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema covers all parameters with basic descriptions, but the description adds crucial semantics by distinguishing parameters (weight, height) from outputs (bmi, category). This prevents an agent from mistakenly passing bmi and category as inputs, adding value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a BMI utility and lists weight and height as inputs with BMI and category as outputs. Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'calculate', the parameter/output structure makes the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the parameter and output lists—an agent can infer when to use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives or any exclusions, so it provides only implicit context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools