multicalci

npsh_available

Net Positive Suction Head available for a centrifugal pump, broken down by component. Optionally compares against NPSHr and reports the margin with a Hydraulic Institute style assessment. Powered by multicalci.com.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`density_kgm3`	No	Liquid density, kg/m3
`static_head_m`	Yes	Liquid level above pump centreline, m (negative for lift)
`friction_loss_m`	No	Suction line friction and fitting losses, m
`npsh_required_m`	No	Pump NPSHr from the curve, m (optional)
`vapour_pressure_bara`	No	Vapour pressure at pumping temperature, bar a
`suction_pressure_bara`	No	Absolute pressure on suction vessel surface, bar a

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses behavior by mentioning component breakdown and optional comparison with NPSHr, but does not explain what the output structure is or any safety/caveat details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, but the sentence 'Powered by multicalci.com' is unnecessary filler that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool. The first two sentences are useful and front-loaded.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description partially explains the output ('broken down by component', 'reports margin') but does not specify the return format or calculation details. It is adequate for a simple calculator but leaves some ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only hinting at the components involved but not detailing any parameter semantics or relationships.

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 calculates Net Positive Suction Head available for a centrifugal pump, with a component breakdown and optional NPSHr comparison. This distinguishes it from all siblings, which focus on other engineering calculations.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for NPSH calculations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. No exclusions or alternative mentions are provided, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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

All multicalci 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct engineering calculation: valve sizing for gas vs liquid, compressibility, NPSH, orifice flow, pipe friction, pump power, steam saturation, and tank volume. There is no functional overlap that would confuse an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case and clearly indicate the calculation subject, but there is slight inconsistency in ordering (e.g., control_valve_size_gas vs gas_z_factor_pr) and inclusion of standards/suffixes (pr, iso5167, if97). The pattern is still predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for a specialized engineering calculation toolkit. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without redundancy, and the count is comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers core fluid handling and thermodynamic calculations (valve sizing, pipe flow, pump selection, steam properties, tank geometry). Minor gaps exist, such as heat exchanger calculations or relief valve sizing, but the provided set covers common process engineering needs without major dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?