calc.engineer

attenuator pi

attenuator_pi

Design a Pi-topology resistive attenuator pad. Given a desired attenuation in dB and characteristic impedance (default 50 ohm), computes the three resistor values for a symmetrical Pi-pad network. The Pi attenuator uses two shunt resistors (R1, R3) and one series resistor (R2). Commonly used in RF signal chains to reduce signal level while maintaining impedance match. Compare with attenuator_tee for T-pad topology.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`z0_ohm`	No	Characteristic impedance in ohms (default 50)
`attenuation_db`	Yes	Desired attenuation in decibels (positive value)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`r1_ohm`	Yes	Shunt resistor R1 (input side) in ohms
`r2_ohm`	Yes	Series resistor R2 (middle) in ohms
`r3_ohm`	Yes	Shunt resistor R3 (output side) in ohms
`topology`	Yes	Attenuator topology identifier

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Though no annotations exist, the description adequately conveys the tool's behavior: it computes resistor values for a symmetrical Pi-pad network. However, it could mention assumptions (e.g., symmetrical network) or limitations (e.g., attenuation range constraints).

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the key purpose. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality for a simple calculator. It mentions resistor values and topology, and provides comparison context.

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. Description adds meaning by naming resistors (R1, R3 shunt, R2 series) and mentioning default impedance, but doesn't provide additional format or constraints beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it designs a Pi-topology resistive attenuator pad, computes three resistor values, and distinguishes from sibling tool attenuator_tee by mentioning T-pad topology.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly instructs to compare with attenuator_tee for T-pad topology, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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

All calc.engineer 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

Disambiguation4/5

Despite 89 tools, each has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that often reference related tools. Overlap exists (e.g., multiple LoRa/RF tools), but the descriptions are sufficient to distinguish them. Some confusion possible among similar-sounding tools like attenuator_pi and attenuator_tee, but the descriptions explicitly compare them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Consistent underscore-separated lowercase naming. Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., capacitor_charge, wire_gauge) or noun_noun (power_cost). Minor inconsistencies such as 'bmi_calculator' vs 'solar_sizing' but overall predictable.

Tool Count2/5

89 tools is far too many for a single MCP server. This scope is more appropriate for multiple specialized servers. The sheer number will slow agent selection and increase cognitive load, reducing coherence.

Completeness3/5

Covers many domains (RF, solar, PCB, networking, math, etc.) but lacks depth in some areas (e.g., no three-phase power, no airflow calculations). Some domains have comprehensive coverage (LoRa/Meshtastic), but others feel incomplete for the tool count.

Resources

Need Help?