calc.engineer

circumference

circumference

Calculate the circumference and area of a circle given either a radius or diameter. Provide one or both; if both are given, radius takes precedence. Returns circumference (C = 2πr), area (A = πr²), and both radius and diameter for completeness. Common in mechanical engineering (pulley systems, pipe sizing), electronics (antenna loop calculations, coil winding), civil engineering (manhole covers, circular foundations), and everyday measurement tasks.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`radius`	No	The radius of the circle (takes precedence over diameter)
`diameter`	No	The diameter of the circle

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`area`	Yes	Area of the circle (A = πr²)
`radius`	Yes	Radius of the circle
`diameter`	Yes	Diameter of the circle
`circumference`	Yes	Circumference of the circle (C = 2πr)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the core formulas (C=2πr, A=πr²), the return fields (circumference, area, radius, diameter), and the precedence rule. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context but could mention validation of inputs (e.g., negative numbers).

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?

The description is concise, using a few sentences without any fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, making it easy to scan.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not provided but noted), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the purpose, parameter usage, precedence, and example domains. Minor gaps exist (e.g., output units) but are not critical.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about radius precedence and application areas, but does not significantly extend beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 that the tool calculates circumference and area of a circle given radius or diameter. It uses specific verbs and resources, and is distinct from sibling tools which are various engineering calculators.

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?

The description explains that users can provide one or both of radius/diameter, with radius taking precedence. It lists multiple use cases in engineering and everyday tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives.

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?