Pump hydraulic, shaft (brake) and motor input power from duty point, with the next standard IEC motor frame size at a 15 percent margin. Powered by multicalci.com.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| head_m | Yes | Total differential head, m | |
| flow_m3h | Yes | Flow rate, m3/h | |
| density_kgm3 | No | Liquid density, kg/m3 | |
| pump_efficiency | No | Pump efficiency, percent | |
| motor_efficiency | No | Motor efficiency, percent |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core calculation and the 15% margin behavior, but does not mention assumptions like default efficiencies, error handling, or return format. It is not contradictory but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, using one sentence to convey the primary function and the margin detail. The 'Powered by multicalci.com' clause is non-essential but brief, so it does not significantly detract.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description should explain return values more explicitly. It names the calculated powers and motor frame size but omits units, exact output fields, or any edge-case behavior, making it partially incomplete for a calculation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, as every parameter has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies despite the absence of parameter-level clarification in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool calculates hydraulic, shaft (brake) and motor input power from a duty point, and identifies the next standard IEC motor frame size with a 15% margin. This specific scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like valve sizing or pipe pressure drop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for pump power calculations but provides no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The context suggests it is applicable for pump sizing tasks, but exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.