Skip to main content
Glama
bounded-calcs-mcp

bounded-calcs-mcp

by nicoveraz

evaluate

Run clinical risk-score calculations treating missing findings as unknown, not normal, to see if the decision is settled, all possible categories, score range, and unknowns worth asking about.

Instructions

Evaluate a calculator on what is actually known.

findings maps item ids to values: "present" / "absent" for boolean items, one of the listed levels for ordinal items, a number for numeric items ("normal" for those with a normal range, when the note gives no number; {"min": x, "max": y} when it gives only bounds). Omit items that are not documented (or send "unknown"); they are treated as unknown, never as normal.

Returns whether the decision category is settled, every category still possible, the worst case, the score range, and the decisive unknowns: the only items worth asking the clinician about, each with what the category would be for each possible answer.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "calculator_id": "<calculator_id>"
    },
    "name": "evaluate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
findingsNo
calculator_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the safety-critical semantic that missing findings are treated as unknown, never normal, and describes what the result contains (settled vs. possible categories, worst case, score range, decisive unknowns). It does not cover failure behavior for malformed inputs or an unknown calculator_id.

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 opening sentence is short and front-loaded, and the dense value-format rules are grouped into one paragraph that earns its length. The closing return-value inventory is somewhat longer than necessary given an output schema already exists.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and a complex, safety-sensitive semantic (unknown vs. normal), the definition covers the semantics an agent most needs to avoid a wrong call. The unstated identity of `calculator_id` and the absence of any error-handling note are the remaining gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does so thoroughly for `findings`, spelling out the value encoding for boolean, ordinal and numeric items including the "normal" and {min,max} bound cases. The `calculator_id` parameter receives no explanation at all, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Evaluate a calculator") and qualifies the scope ("on what is actually known"), which tells an agent this is a decision/assessment tool rather than a lookup. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_schema or list_calculators, so the sibling boundary is left implicit.

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 guidance exists but is embedded rather than explicit: the agent is told to omit undocumented items (or send "unknown") because they are never treated as normal, which is a real calling rule. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_schema, nor any note that calculator_id should come from list_calculators.

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