Skip to main content
Glama

Inductor Calculator

calculator_inductor
Read-only

E = ½LI²; solve for L, I, or E.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "calculator_inductor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
energyNoE in Joules.
currentNoI in Amperes.
calculateNoenergy|inductance|current|autoauto
inductanceNoL in Henrys.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultNo
expressionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the governing equation, but it does not disclose practical behavior such as whether two known values are required or how the 'auto' calculation mode resolves the missing variable.

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 a single compact sentence with the formula front-loaded. There is no filler, and every element contributes to identifying the calculator's purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple calculator with an output schema and rich annotations, the description provides enough domain context to identify the formula and target variables. It could be more complete by explaining input sufficiency and the auto mode, but those gaps are modest given the structured schema.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including units for E, I, and L. The description adds the relationship between the variables, but it does not clarify the calculate modes or the auto behavior beyond the schema's terse enum-like string.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states the exact formula E = ½LI² and says it solves for L, I, or E, which is a clear verb-plus-resource purpose. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or explain how it differs from adjacent calculators such as calculator_energy, but the formula makes the specific domain inferable.

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?

It says what can be solved for but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. With many energy-related siblings, an agent receives no explicit routing advice for choosing this over calculator_energy or related tools.

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.