calc.engineer

link budget

link_budget

Compute a full RF link budget from transmitter power, frequency, distance, and antenna gains. Calculates EIRP, free-space path loss (ITU-R P.525), received power at the receiver, and link margin relative to an optional receiver sensitivity threshold. Use this to determine whether a wireless link closes with adequate margin. Accepts output from noise_figure_cascade and feeds into snr_margin for full receive-chain analysis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tx_dbm`	Yes	Transmitter output power in dBm
`dist_km`	Yes	Link distance in kilometres
`freq_mhz`	Yes	Carrier frequency in megahertz (MHz)
`rx_gain_dbi`	No	Receive antenna gain in dBi (default 2.15 for a half-wave dipole)
`tx_gain_dbi`	No	Transmit antenna gain in dBi (default 2.15 for a half-wave dipole)
`rx_sensitivity_dbm`	No	Receiver sensitivity in dBm; when provided, link margin is calculated

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fspl_db`	Yes	Free-space path loss in dB
`eirp_dbm`	Yes	Effective isotropic radiated power in dBm
`margin_db`	Yes	Link margin in dB (null when sensitivity is not provided)
`rx_power_dbm`	Yes	Received signal power in dBm
`wavelength_m`	Yes	RF wavelength in metres

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It specifies the underlying standard (ITU-R P.525) and explains how the optional rx_sensitivity_dbm parameter affects margin calculation. Does not mention side effects, but for a calculator tool this is adequate. The description is transparent about what it computes.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and detailed outputs. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff. Clear and efficient.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but mentioned), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers main use case and workflow integration. Minor gap: does not state assumptions (e.g., free-space propagation, no obstacles), but overall complete for a calculator tool.

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%—every parameter has a description. The description provides overall context (computing link budget) but does not add additional per-parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate for high coverage.

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 it computes a full RF link budget, listing specific outputs (EIRP, path loss, received power, link margin). It distinguishes from sibling tools like noise_figure_cascade and snr_margin by mentioning workflow integration (accepts output from noise_figure_cascade, feeds into snr_margin).

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this to determine whether a wireless link closes with adequate margin.' It also provides workflow context (accepts output from noise_figure_cascade, feeds into snr_margin), helping the agent understand when to use this tool in a sequence. No explicit exclusion criteria, but clear usage context.

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?