Calculate fluid dynamics Darcy-Weisbach friction factor, Reynolds number, head loss, and pressure drop in pipes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| flowRateM3s | Yes | Volumetric flow rate Q in m^3/s | |
| pipeLengthM | Yes | Total pipe run length L in meters | |
| pipeDiameterM | Yes | Internal pipe diameter D in meters | |
| pipeRoughnessM | No | Absolute pipe surface roughness (m) | |
| fluidDensityKgM3 | No | Fluid density (kg/m^3) | |
| dynamicViscosityPaS | No | Dynamic viscosity (Pa·s) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the calculations performed, but it does not describe the return format, output units, or assumptions such as laminar vs turbulent flow handling. For a read-only calculator this is acceptable but not fully transparent.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that names the calculation verb and all key outputs with no filler or repetition of schema details. Every word contributes to selecting and invoking the tool.
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?
The description covers what the tool computes and clearly names the four output quantities, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It omits output units and return structure, but the fully documented input schema and the straightforward calculator nature keep the tool navigable.
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?
The input schema provides full descriptions and units for all six parameters, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond naming the relevant output quantities. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('Darcy-Weisbach friction factor, Reynolds number, head loss, and pressure drop in pipes'), which clearly identifies this as the pipe-flow calculator. The mention of pipes and specific fluid-dynamics quantities differentiates it from sibling tools like beam_bending and rlc_circuit.
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 makes the usage context clear: an agent should use this tool when pipe flow calculations involving friction factor, Reynolds number, head loss, or pressure drop are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the pipe-specific language leaves little ambiguity among the sibling calculators.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by domain and target calculation, such as rocket_deltav versus projectile_motion or black_scholes versus compound_wealth. A few pairs like home_loan_emi/mortgage_piti and contractor_parity/billable_floor could be initially confused, but the descriptions resolve the intended use cases.
All tool names are lowercase snake_case and generally follow a topic-plus-suffix pattern, which is readable and consistent. The pattern is not a strict verb_noun convention, and acronym-heavy names like feie_nomad_tracker, scorp_optimizer, and casio_991_solve introduce stylistic variance.
At exactly 25 tools, this is at the heavy but still usable end of the scale. The broad spread across tax, finance, engineering, physics, math, and cloud cost makes the server feel more like several domain calculators merged into one service.
Each tool is a self-contained calculation with no missing follow-up operations, so there are no obvious dead ends for the workflows it targets. The main gaps are minor adjacent calculators—such as NPV, depreciation, or broader statistical inference—that agents could work around or obtain elsewhere.
