Skip to main content
Glama

MakerPortal compute

Decide whether one LLM fits one accelerator, at every quantization.

llmVramFit

Decide whether one LLM fits one accelerator, at every quantization.

The identical function that renders /lab/llm-vram/{model}/{gpu}. Returns one row per quantization (FP16 through Q3_K_M) with weight bytes and their basis, headroom, the largest context that fits, and the bandwidth-limited decode ceiling; plus the chosen best-fitting quant, the full-precision row, and a five-state verdict. Model geometry comes from each repo’s own config.json and tensor-shape index; accelerator capacity and bandwidth come from the site’s device table.

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gpuYesAccelerator slug.
batchNoConcurrent sequences sharing the cache. Omit it for the published page's 1.
modelYesModel slug.
contextNoContext length in tokens used for the headline verdict. Omit it and the solver takes its own default of 8192, which is what the published page states.
kvBytesNoBytes per KV cache element: 2 for FP16/BF16 cache, 1 for an 8-bit cache. Omit it for the published page's 2.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputsYesThe parsed inputs, echoed back with defaults filled in.
resultYesThe solved analysis. Shape is per-tool.
licenseYes
provenanceYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it does so substantively: it lists the returned fields, mentions the five-state verdict, describes data sources (config.json, tensor-shape index, device table), and notes the provenance canonicalUrl behavior for on-grid versus off-grid inputs. It does not discuss error cases or performance, but for a read-only sizing tool the disclosure is thorough.

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 four sentences long and front-loads the core purpose before moving to output details, data sources, and provenance. Each sentence carries meaningful information, though the first sentence slightly overlaps with the tool title. Overall it is efficient for the complexity of the tool.

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 purpose, output shape, key inputs, data provenance, and the extra provenance behavior for off-grid inputs. Since an output schema exists and is rich, the description does not need to enumerate return fields further. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It adds minor context around model geometry and accelerator data sources, but the schema already documents model, gpu, batch, context, and kvBytes precisely. The description neither contradicts nor materially extends the schema semantics.

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: 'Decide whether one LLM fits one accelerator, at every quantization.' It further specifies the output (one row per quantization, plus a five-state verdict) and identifies the underlying page it mirrors, so there is no ambiguity about what the tool computes. It is clearly distinguishable from the unrelated sibling tools in the same group.

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 by stating it is 'the identical function that renders /lab/llm-vram/{model}/{gpu}', which tells an agent exactly what question the tool answers and how it maps to published content. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough that an agent can apply it correctly.

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

Try in Browser

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