calc.engineer

impedance match

impedance_match

Designs an L-network impedance matching circuit between two real impedances at a given frequency. Computes the required shunt and series reactive components (inductor and capacitor) to transform the source impedance to the load impedance. The network Q factor is sqrt(Rh/Rl - 1) where Rh is the higher impedance. Topology is automatically selected: the shunt element is placed across the higher impedance side. Essential for antenna matching, amplifier input/output matching, and maximizing power transfer. Chain from lc_resonance to match at a tank circuit's resonant frequency.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`freq_mhz`	Yes	Design frequency in megahertz for component value calculation.
`load_ohm`	Yes	Load impedance in ohms (real, resistive). Must differ from source impedance.
`source_ohm`	Yes	Source impedance in ohms (real, resistive). Must differ from load impedance.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q_factor`	Yes	Network Q factor = sqrt(Rh/Rl - 1), where Rh is the higher impedance.
`topology`	Yes	Description of the L-network arrangement (which side gets shunt vs series element).
`shunt_component`	Yes	The shunt (parallel) component of the L-network.
`series_component`	Yes	The series component of the L-network.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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 transparency. It discloses that the tool computes shunt and series components, selects topology based on higher impedance side, and provides the Q factor formula. It does not cover limitations (e.g., only real impedances) or side effects, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 and well-structured, starting with the primary purpose and proceeding to details. Every sentence contributes value, including the Q factor note, topology selection, and application guidance. No filler.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown but reported), the description is complete. It explains the design methodology, Q factor, topology selection, and usage context. No gaps evident.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the role of source and load impedances (real, resistive) and frequency, and notes constraints (must differ). This context enriches the parameter understanding.

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 designs an L-network impedance matching circuit between two real impedances at a given frequency, specifying the computation of shunt and series reactive components and automatic topology selection. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning chaining with lc_resonance and applications in antenna and amplifier matching.

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 provides explicit context for when to use the tool, such as for antenna matching, amplifier input/output matching, and maximizing power transfer. It suggests chaining from lc_resonance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or 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?