Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bounded-calcs-mcp

bounded-calcs-mcp

by nicoveraz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_calculators

Lists available clinical risk-score calculators with their IDs, names, and purposes so you can choose the right one.

Instructions

List the available calculators (id, name, purpose).

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": "list_calculators"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. "List" implies a non-mutating read and there are no parameters, so the risk surface is minimal, but the description says nothing about ordering, whether the list is exhaustive, or any access constraints.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned fields compactly bracketed. Nothing to trim.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description only needs to convey intent, which it does. The main omission is any hint that this list feeds the sibling evaluate tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The parenthetical (id, name, purpose) usefully tells the agent what identifiers it will receive to pass on to other tools.

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?

"List the available calculators" gives a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical enumerates the fields returned. It is unambiguous, though it does nothing to differentiate itself from the sibling get_schema/evaluate 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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is a discovery tool to call before invoking evaluate, but the description never says when to use it, when not to, or that evaluate is the follow-on step.

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