multicalci

tank_volume

Total and partial-fill volume of a cylindrical tank or pressure vessel with flat, hemispherical, 2:1 ellipsoidal, torispherical (ASME F&D) or conical heads. Horizontal or vertical. The torispherical head is integrated over the exact crown and knuckle profile rather than the usual approximation. Powered by multicalci.com.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`head_type`	No	Head type on both ends	ellipsoidal_2_1
`diameter_m`	Yes	Inside shell diameter, m
`orientation`	No	Vessel orientation	vertical
`density_kgm3`	No	Liquid density for mass output, kg/m3 (optional)
`cone_height_m`	No	Conical head height, m (default = D/2)
`crown_radius_m`	No	Torispherical crown radius L, m (ASME F&D default = D)
`liquid_level_m`	No	Liquid level from the lowest inside point, m (optional)
`knuckle_radius_m`	No	Torispherical knuckle radius r, m (ASME F&D default = 0.06 D)
`straight_length_m`	Yes	Straight shell length, tangent to tangent, m

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds a valuable detail: torispherical heads are integrated over the exact crown and knuckle profile rather than approximated. However, it does not disclose output units, return format, or behavior when density is provided for mass output, which is a notable gap given no annotations.

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 first three sentences are concise and informative, covering purpose, orientations, and the special torispherical integration. The 'Powered by multicalci.com' sentence is filler with no operational value, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify that density enables mass output and liquid_level enables partial-fill volumes. It does neither explicitly, nor does it state defaults for head type and orientation. It covers the main purpose and differentiator but leaves important behavior undocumented.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The description adds context for torispherical geometry (crown/knuckle) but does not explain parameter interactions or defaults beyond what schema already provides, earning a baseline score.

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 computes total and partial-fill volume of cylindrical tanks/pressure vessels with specific head types. It is distinct from all sibling tools (valve sizing, pressure drop, etc.), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, the tool's unique purpose among siblings makes its usage context clear. It is evident this tool is for volume calculations, not fluid dynamics or component sizing, but explicit when-to-use guidance is absent.

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?