calc.engineer

square footage

square_footage

Calculates area and perimeter for common shapes — rectangle, circle, or triangle — in both imperial and metric units. Returns area in square feet, square meters, and acres, plus perimeter in feet and meters. For rectangles: area = length * width, perimeter = 2*(length + width). For circles: area = pi * r^2, perimeter = 2 * pi * r. For triangles: area = 0.5 * base * height, perimeter approximated as base + height + sqrt(base^2 + height^2). Useful for real estate, flooring, landscaping, and construction estimates.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`area_sqm`	Yes	Area in square meters (sqft * 0.092903).
`area_sqft`	Yes	Area in square feet.
`area_acres`	Yes	Area in acres (sqft / 43560).
`perimeter_m`	Yes	Perimeter in meters.
`perimeter_ft`	Yes	Perimeter in feet.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully explains the formulas and units for each shape, and no side effects or destructive actions are expected from a calculator. The description is transparent and comprehensive.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then details formulas. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity and no input parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers shapes, units, and use cases. The output schema exists but is not described, though the return units are mentioned.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no confusion. However, the tool likely requires inputs not reflected in 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 calculates area and perimeter for rectangle, circle, and triangle in imperial and metric units. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are unrelated calculators.

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 use cases like real estate, flooring, landscaping, and construction estimates, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives, though no direct siblings exist.

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?