calc.engineer

slope calc

slope_calc

Calculate the slope, y-intercept, line equation, angle, and distance between two points in a 2D Cartesian plane. Given coordinates (x1, y1) and (x2, y2), computes slope (rise/run), y-intercept, the equation in slope-intercept form (y = mx + b), angle in degrees relative to the x-axis, and Euclidean distance. Handles vertical and horizontal lines as special cases. Useful for surveying, civil engineering grade calculations, linear regression visualization, and physics kinematics problems.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`x1`	Yes	X-coordinate of the first point
`x2`	Yes	X-coordinate of the second point
`y1`	Yes	Y-coordinate of the first point
`y2`	Yes	Y-coordinate of the second point

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slope`	Yes	Slope of the line (null for vertical lines)
`distance`	Yes	Euclidean distance between the two points
`equation`	Yes	Line equation in slope-intercept form or 'x = c' for vertical
`is_vertical`	Yes	True if the line is vertical (undefined slope)
`y_intercept`	Yes	Y-intercept of the line (null for vertical lines)
`angle_degrees`	Yes	Angle of the line relative to the positive x-axis in degrees
`is_horizontal`	Yes	True if the line is horizontal (slope = 0)

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses all outputs, mentions handling of vertical/horizontal lines as special cases, and lists use cases. It does not discuss error conditions (e.g., identical points), but overall provides good behavioral context.

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 (4-5 sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value—outputs, computation, special cases, and use cases. No wasted words.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, input context, special cases, and practical applications. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it groups coordinates into points and explains the computation context. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 calculates slope, y-intercept, line equation, angle, and distance between two points. It uses specific verbs like 'calculate' and 'compute', and distinguishes itself from sibling calculators by focusing on 2D line geometry.

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 example use cases (surveying, civil engineering, linear regression, physics kinematics) that indicate when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives. However, the context is clear enough for typical scenarios.

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?