MakerPortal compute

Design one RBJ-cookbook biquad and report its numerical behaviour.

biquadDesign

Design one RBJ-cookbook biquad and report its numerical behaviour.

The identical function that renders /lab/biquad/{type}/{freq}. Returns coefficients at the requested sample rate, coefficients at every other rate whose Nyquist limit clears the corner, pole/zero geometry, the −3 dB points solved by bisection, a Q sweep, a gain sweep where the type uses gain, and the quantised forms. The 240-point response curve is omitted unless include=curve is passed. Non-finite values (a notch is −∞ at f0; a low-pass is −∞ at Nyquist) are encoded as the strings "Infinity", "-Infinity" and "NaN" — JSON has no other honest option, and null would be a different answer.

Every result carries provenance.canonicalUrl — the published page for these exact inputs, or the lane hub when they are off the published grid.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Filter Q. Defaults to the type’s own default. Shelves ignore it (S is fixed at 1, matching Web Audio).
`fs`	No	Sample rate in Hz. Defaults to 48000.
`freq`	Yes	Corner (or centre) frequency f0 in Hz. Must be below Nyquist.
`gain`	No	Peak/shelf gain in dB. Ignored by types that do not use gain.
`type`	Yes	Filter type.
`include`	No	Optional heavy block to include, omitted by default. "curve": The 240-point log-spaced magnitude response, and one per sweep row.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`inputs`	Yes	The parsed inputs, echoed back with defaults filled in.
`result`	Yes	The solved analysis. Shape is per-tool.
`license`	Yes
`provenance`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully discloses output composition, the omission of the response curve unless requested, quantised forms, non-finite value encoding as strings, and the provenance field. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 dense but well structured: a one-sentence summary, a detailed list of returned values, an edge-case note on non-finite JSON encoding, and a provenance note. Every sentence adds operational value with no filler.

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 description covers return values, optional heavy output, numerical edge cases, encoding decisions, and provenance. Even though an output schema exists, the description goes beyond what structured data alone would convey and leaves no important behavioral gap for an agent invoking this tool.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage with detailed explanations for q, fs, freq, gain, type, and include. The description adds little beyond the schema because the schema already documents defaults, ranges, and type-specific behavior like shelves ignoring q.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Design one RBJ-cookbook biquad and report its numerical behaviour.' It also names the URL route it mirrors and enumerates exactly what the result contains, so an agent can clearly tell what the tool does even without the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context on what the tool is for and what optional include=curve controls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling tools are unrelated to biquad design, so no exclusion is necessary.

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

All MakerPortal compute tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct computational domain: biquad filter design, LLM VRAM fitting, room eigenmodes, room shape selection, and solenoid fields. Even the two room-related tools are cleanly separated—one analyzes existing dimensions while the other synthesizes proportions—so an agent is unlikely to misselect.

Naming Consistency5/5

All five tool names follow the same camelCase, domain-plus-result pattern: biquadDesign, llmVramFit, roomModes, roomShapeBand, solenoidField. There are no underscores, hyphens, or mixed casing conventions, so the naming is internally consistent.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is a well-scoped count for a specialized compute server. Each tool is substantial and standalone, and there is no sense of padding or missing middle ground between too granular and too broad.

Completeness5/5

Each tool is a self-contained calculation with rich output and explicit bounds, and no CRUD lifecycle is expected for a compute server. The coverage across the exposed domains is thorough, with no obvious dead-end workflow or missing companion operation.

Resources

Need Help?