API Hub MCP — 337+ Tools

calorie_burn

Calculate calories burned for activities like running, walking, cycling, or swimming using your weight, duration, and intensity level.

Instructions

Estimate calories burned during physical activities.

Parameters:
    activity — Activity type: 'running', 'walking', 'cycling', 'swimming', 'yoga', etc.
    weight — Body weight in kg.
    duration — Duration in minutes.
    intensity — 'light', 'moderate' (default), or 'vigorous'.

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": {
      "activity": "<activity>",
      "weight": "<weight>",
      "duration": "<duration>"
    },
    "name": "calorie_burn"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`activity`	Yes
`weight`	Yes
`duration`	Yes
`intensity`	No	moderate

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.4.1Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the estimation based on activity, weight, duration, and intensity, but does not discuss precision, underlying MET values, or any limitations. Adequate but not deep.

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 description is concise: one main sentence followed by a clear bulleted parameter list. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly more verbose than necessary for the parameter details.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool has only 4 simple parameters, and the description explains all inputs thoroughly. An output schema exists, so the description does not need to cover return values. Complete for this complexity.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by listing example activities, specifying units (kg, minutes), and defining intensity options (light, moderate, vigorous) with a default. Adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Estimate calories burned during physical activities.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from other calorie-related tools like bmr_calc or tdee_calc.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies use for estimating activity calories, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to siblings like bmr_calc or body_fat_calc.

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

Deploy Server