Compute resonant RLC circuit electrical properties: resonant frequency f0, Q-factor, bandwidth, and AC impedance magnitude.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frequencyHz | No | Operating frequency f in Hz (optional) | |
| resistanceOhms | Yes | Resistance R in Ohms (Ω) | |
| inductanceHenrys | Yes | Inductance L in Henrys (H) | |
| capacitanceFarads | Yes | Capacitance C in Farads (F) |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does list the outputs, which is useful, but it fails to explain the role of the optional frequencyHz parameter—whether impedance magnitude is computed at resonance when frequencyHz is omitted or whether it is required for that output. This ambiguity about a key behavioral path is a meaningful gap.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the key outputs without wasted words. Every element in the sentence contributes to the agent's understanding of the tool's purpose.
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 names all major outputs, which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema, and the schema covers parameter definitions. However, the optional frequencyHz behavior is unclear, and there is no mention of assumptions (e.g., ideal components) or edge cases. For a tool with four parameters and no output schema, this leaves notable gaps in the full calling context.
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%, meaning all parameters are already documented in the schema with units and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond naming outputs like f0, which indirectly relate to inductance and capacitance but does not clarify how the parameters map to computations. Baseline 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?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('compute') and resource ('resonant RLC circuit electrical properties'), and enumerates the exact outputs: resonant frequency f0, Q-factor, bandwidth, and AC impedance magnitude. It distinguishes itself from all siblings, which are predominantly finance, tax, and mechanical calculators, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's domain.
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 usage for RLC circuit analysis by naming the computed properties, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, though the sibling list makes cross-domain confusion unlikely. Usage context is only implied, not stated.
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.
