calc.engineer

dipole

dipole

Calculate physical dimensions of a dipole antenna for a given frequency. Returns half-wave or quarter-wave element length in metres, feet, and inches. A half-wave dipole is the most common resonant antenna with approximately 2.15 dBi gain. A quarter-wave monopole (ground plane antenna) is half the length and is widely used in handheld radios and vehicle-mounted systems. Use this before building or purchasing an antenna to verify element length for your operating frequency.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No	Antenna type: half_wave dipole or quarter_wave monopole	half_wave
`freq_mhz`	Yes	Operating frequency in megahertz (MHz)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`length_m`	Yes	Element length in metres
`length_ft`	Yes	Element length in feet
`length_in`	Yes	Element length in inches
`wavelength_m`	Yes	Full wavelength in metres

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return units, gain characteristics, and relationship between half-wave and quarter-wave. For a simple calculator, this is adequate.

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 description is concise, with the main purpose in the first sentence, and additional details in subsequent sentences. No unnecessary words.

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 output schema exists, description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers antenna types, usage, and units, which is sufficient for this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds context by explaining what half-wave and quarter-wave antennas are and that freq_mhz is operating frequency, enhancing understanding 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?

The description specifies the tool calculates physical dimensions of a dipole antenna for a given frequency, returning lengths in metres, feet, and inches. It also distinguishes between half-wave and quarter-wave types, which is clear and specific.

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 explicitly states to use this tool before building or purchasing an antenna to verify element length. While it doesn't mention when not to use, the context makes it clear it's for antenna dimension calculation, and siblings do not overlap.

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?