API Hub MCP — 337+ Tools

calculate_bmi

Calculate Body Mass Index (BMI) using weight and height. Supports metric (kg/cm) and imperial (lbs/in) units.

Instructions

Calculate BMI (Body Mass Index) from weight and height.

Parameters:
    weight — Weight (kg for metric, lbs for imperial).
    height — Height (cm for metric, inches for imperial).
    unit — 'metric' (default) or 'imperial'.

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": {
      "weight": "<weight>",
      "height": "<height>"
    },
    "name": "calculate_bmi"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`weight`	Yes
`height`	Yes
`unit`	No	metric

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.4.1Jun 22, 2026

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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions parameter units and default but does not outline formula, edge cases (e.g., zero/negative values), error handling, or return value structure. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 brief, with a clear introductory sentence followed by a list of parameters. No redundant information. It is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

While the tool is simple and the output schema presumably documents return values, the description omits any mention of required parameters (schema indicates weight and height are required) and does not discuss potential errors or usage scope. It is adequate but leaves 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying units for weight and height (e.g., 'kg for metric, lbs for imperial') and defines the unit parameter's values. This is helpful but could be more precise (e.g., requiring positive numbers).

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Calculate BMI (Body Mass Index) from weight and height.' This provides a specific verb, resource, and scope. It uniquely identifies the tool among siblings, as BMI calculation is distinctly described.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bmr_calc or body_fat_calc. The description does not specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without comparative advice.

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

Deploy Server