calc.engineer

tcp throughput

tcp_throughput

Calculate maximum TCP throughput using the Bandwidth-Delay Product (BDP) formula. Given link bandwidth and round-trip latency, computes the BDP (maximum in-flight data), achievable throughput with a given TCP window size, link utilization percentage, and recommended window size for full utilization. Critical for diagnosing slow transfers over high-latency links (WAN, VPN, satellite), tuning TCP buffers, and understanding why a 1Gbps link may only deliver 25Mbps with default 64KB windows. Applies to iperf testing, WAN optimization, and network capacity planning.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rtt_ms`	Yes	Round-trip time (latency) in milliseconds
`mss_bytes`	No	Maximum Segment Size in bytes (typically 1460 for Ethernet)
`bandwidth_mbps`	Yes	Available link bandwidth in megabits per second
`window_size_kb`	No	TCP receive window size in kilobytes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bdp_kb`	Yes	Bandwidth-Delay Product in kilobytes
`bdp_bytes`	Yes	Bandwidth-Delay Product in bytes: maximum data in flight
`utilization_pct`	Yes	Percentage of available bandwidth that can actually be used
`window_sufficient`	Yes	Whether the current window size is large enough to fill the pipe
`max_throughput_mbps`	Yes	Maximum achievable TCP throughput in megabits per second given the window size
`recommended_window_kb`	Yes	Minimum window size in kilobytes needed to fully utilize the link

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully explains the tool's behavior as a calculator, including what it computes and the underlying formula. No hidden behaviors or side effects.

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 well-structured, about 100 words, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. No unnecessary repetition.

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 presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, inputs, and applications. Could mention output format but not necessary.

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?

All parameters are detailed in the JSON schema, so description adds minimal extra semantics beyond context reference to 64KB windows. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 maximum TCP throughput using BDP formula, specifying inputs and outputs. It is distinct from all sibling 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?

Provides specific use cases like diagnosing slow transfers over high-latency links, tuning buffers, and capacity planning, giving clear context for when to use.

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?