calc.engineer

thermal enclosure

thermal_enclosure

Estimate steady-state thermal behaviour of a rectangular enclosure (server rack, electronics housing, equipment cabinet) using a lumped-parameter energy balance with natural-convection and radiation correlations, or forced-flow air energy balance. Accepts enclosure dimensions, heat source positions and wattages, and airflow configuration. Returns temperature extremes, estimated hotspot location, airflow velocity summary, and overall thermal resistance. Runs instantly in-worker; a full CFD container backend is planned for mesh-level detail.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`width_m`	Yes	Enclosure width (Y) in metres
`height_m`	Yes	Enclosure height (Z) in metres
`length_m`	Yes	Enclosure length (X) in metres
`flow_type`	Yes	Airflow type
`heat_sources`	Yes	Heat sources inside the enclosure
`mesh_density`	No	Mesh density — coarse (~50K cells), medium (~200K), fine (~500K)	medium
`ambient_temp_c`	No	Ambient air temperature in Celsius
`inlet_position`	No	Inlet location	front_bottom
`outlet_position`	No	Outlet location	rear_top
`inlet_velocity_ms`	No	Inlet air velocity in m/s (required for forced flow)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`solver`	Yes	OpenFOAM solver used
`warnings`	Yes	Any solver warnings
`avg_temp_c`	Yes	Volume-averaged temperature (°C)
`iterations`	Yes	Number of solver iterations to convergence
`max_temp_c`	Yes	Maximum temperature in the enclosure (°C)
`mesh_cells`	Yes	Number of mesh cells used
`min_temp_c`	Yes	Minimum temperature (°C)
`runtime_ms`	Yes	Simulation wall-clock time in milliseconds
`total_heat_w`	Yes	Total heat load (W)
`avg_velocity_ms`	Yes	Average airflow velocity (m/s)
`max_velocity_ms`	Yes	Peak airflow velocity (m/s)
`hotspot_location`	Yes	Location of the temperature maximum
`thermal_resistance_cw`	Yes	Overall thermal resistance (°C/W)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the modeling approach (lumped-parameter, natural-convection, radiation, forced-flow), instant execution, and outputs. It does not mention destructive behavior or authorization needs, which are irrelevant for a simulation tool. The description is transparent about its scope and limitations (not a full CFD).

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 two sentences: one covering the method and inputs, the other covering outputs and runtime. It is front-loaded with a specific verb phrase and contains no superfluous words. Every sentence provides essential information.

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 complexity (10 parameters, nested heat sources, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, model, inputs, outputs, and performance characteristics. It mentions future plans for a CFD backend. It could include more on assumptions (e.g., uniform ambient) or accuracy, but overall it is sufficiently complete for agent decision-making.

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 physics model (lumped-parameter, correlations) and providing context for mesh_density (cell counts). This helps the agent understand parameter implications beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 estimates steady-state thermal behavior of a rectangular enclosure using lumped-parameter energy balance. It specifies inputs (dimensions, heat sources, airflow) and outputs (temperature extremes, hotspot location, airflow velocity, thermal resistance). It distinguishes itself from a planned full CFD backend, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use for quick thermal estimation without full CFD, mentioning that a full CFD backend is planned for mesh-level detail. This helps an agent decide when to use this tool versus waiting for a more detailed simulation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative sibling tools (e.g., heatsink_cfd) for comparison.

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?