calc.engineer

mah to wh

mah_to_wh

Converts battery capacity from milliamp-hours (mAh) to watt-hours (Wh), kilowatt-hours (kWh), and joules (J) given the nominal cell voltage. This is the most common battery unit conversion needed when comparing cells rated in mAh (e.g. 18650, AA) against energy budgets specified in Wh. Essential for airline lithium battery compliance (100 Wh limit for carry-on), solar battery bank sizing, and UPS capacity planning. Echoes back input values for easy chaining into battery_life, solar_sizing, and ups_runtime tools.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`voltage_v`	Yes	Nominal battery voltage (V)
`capacity_mah`	Yes	Battery capacity in milliamp-hours (mAh)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`wh`	Yes	Energy in watt-hours
`kwh`	Yes	Energy in kilowatt-hours
`mah`	Yes	Input capacity echoed back (mAh)
`joules`	Yes	Energy in joules
`voltage_v`	Yes	Input voltage echoed back (V)

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavior: it converts capacity, echoes inputs for chaining, and produces multiple output units. It does not mention side effects or destructive actions, which is appropriate for a read-only conversion.

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 four sentences, each contributing value: core function, common use, specific applications, and chaining capability. It is front-loaded and efficient with no redundancy.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides thorough context: conversion types, use cases, and integration with downstream tools. No critical information is missing.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about the conversion purpose and outputs but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the 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 clearly states the tool converts mAh to Wh, kWh, and J given voltage, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by calling it the most common battery unit conversion and listing related tools like battery_life, solar_sizing, ups_runtime.

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 mentions when to use (comparing mAh cells to energy budgets) and lists concrete use cases (airline compliance, solar sizing, UPS planning). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context and sibling list imply it's specialized for battery conversions.

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?