Skip to main content
Glama
bounded-calcs-mcp

bounded-calcs-mcp

by nicoveraz

get_schema

Retrieves a calculator's schema by ID, including items, allowed values, point assignment, decision categories, source citation, and review notes so you can inspect its rules before scoring.

Instructions

Describe a calculator: its items and allowed values, how points are assigned, the decision categories, the source citation, and open review notes.

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": "get_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
calculator_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description does carry the behavioral burden, and it partly meets it by disclosing the content sections returned, implying a non-destructive read of a single calculator. It says nothing about error behavior for an unknown id, whether review notes may be absent, or access requirements.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a parallel enumeration of returned facets; every clause contributes content. Slight density from the comma list, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained and the description's facet list is a bonus. The remaining gaps are how to obtain a calculator_id and what happens for an invalid one, which matter for a single-required-parameter lookup tool with no annotations.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage on calculator_id, but the description implicitly identifies it as the calculator to be described, which is most of what an agent needs. It adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond that implication.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource, "Describe a calculator," and enumerates the exact facets returned: items and allowed values, point assignment, decision categories, source citation, and review notes. That makes it distinguishable from list_calculators and evaluate, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement that a valid calculator_id must first come from list_calculators, and no indication of how this relates to evaluate. Usage is only inferable from the verb and the required id parameter.

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