Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
API Hub MCP — 337+ Tools

API Hub MCP — 337+ Tools

by scotia1973-bot
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

percentage_change_calc

Calculate the percentage change between an old value and a new value. Determine how much a value has increased or decreased as a percentage.

Instructions

Calculate the percentage change between two values.

Parameters:
    old_value — Original value.
    new_value — New value.

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": {
      "old_value": "<old_value>",
      "new_value": "<new_value>"
    },
    "name": "percentage_change_calc"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
old_valueYes
new_valueYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.4.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It fails to mention edge cases like division by zero if old_value is zero, or handling of negative values, which are critical for correct interpretation.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded with the main action. The parameter list is readable but not structured (e.g., not using a table or bullet points). Still, it is concise 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?

For a simple math tool with two numeric parameters and an output schema (present but not detailed in input), the description is adequate. However, it could include notes on edge cases to be fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides basic definitions ('Original value.' and 'New value.') but lacks details like units, allowed ranges, or constraints. This is minimal but sufficient for a simple numeric tool.

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?

Description clearly states the tool calculates percentage change between two values. The verb and resource are specific, and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'percentage_calculator' which likely handles different percentage operations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other calculator tools or different percentage functions. There are no exclusions or context provided.

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