calc.engineer

pcb thermal

pcb_thermal

Estimate PCB component temperatures by solving a thermal resistance network (thermal↔electrical analogy) with the built-in MNA solver. Each component gets a junction node (package θjb from a typical-datasheet table), a local board node coupled to its neighbours through in-plane FR4/copper conduction, and convection to ambient. Computes per-component junction and case temperatures, board extremes, and flags max-junction violations. Runs instantly in-worker; mesh-level CFD via container backend is planned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`components`	Yes	Components on the board
`mesh_density`	No	Mesh density	medium
`board_width_m`	Yes	Board width in metres
`ambient_temp_c`	No	Ambient temperature in Celsius
`board_length_m`	Yes	Board length in metres
`board_thickness_m`	No	Board thickness in metres (default 1.6mm FR4)
`airflow_velocity_ms`	No	Airflow velocity in m/s (0 = natural convection)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`warnings`	Yes	Solver warnings
`mesh_cells`	Yes	Mesh cell count
`runtime_ms`	Yes	Simulation time in ms
`violations`	Yes	Number of components exceeding thermal limits
`total_heat_w`	Yes	Total heat dissipation (W)
`component_temps`	Yes	Per-component thermal results
`avg_board_temp_c`	Yes	Average board temperature (°C)
`max_board_temp_c`	Yes	Maximum board surface temperature (°C)

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully details behavioral traits: thermal network model, per-component junction/case temperatures, board extremes, max-junction violations, and instant in-worker execution. No contradictions or gaps.

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 dense with information and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value.

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 complexity of the tool, the description covers the model, inputs, output types, and limitations. With an output schema available, it need not explain return values, making it complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the thermal model (junction node, board conduction) which provides context 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 it estimates PCB component temperatures using a thermal resistance network and MNA solver. It distinguishes from sibling tools like heatsink_cfd by noting that mesh-level CFD is planned but not yet available.

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 mentions it runs instantly in-worker and that CFD is planned, implying it's for quick estimation versus high-fidelity CFD. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus 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?