calc.engineer

voltage divider

voltage_divider

Calculates output voltage, current draw, and power dissipation for a resistive voltage divider. Given an input voltage Vin and two resistor values R1 (upper) and R2 (lower), computes Vout = Vin * R2 / (R1 + R2), divider current, individual resistor power dissipation, and the division ratio. Essential for biasing circuits, level shifting, ADC input scaling, and feedback networks. Use before trace_width to size traces for divider current, or chain from a power supply output to verify signal levels.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`vin`	Yes	Input voltage in volts (V). Must be positive.
`r1_ohm`	Yes	Upper resistor value in ohms (R1), connected between Vin and Vout node.
`r2_ohm`	Yes	Lower resistor value in ohms (R2), connected between Vout node and ground.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`vout`	Yes	Output voltage in volts at the R1-R2 junction.
`ratio`	Yes	Voltage division ratio R2/(R1+R2), dimensionless 0-1.
`current_ma`	Yes	Current through the divider in milliamps (mA).
`power_r1_mw`	Yes	Power dissipated by R1 in milliwatts (mW).
`power_r2_mw`	Yes	Power dissipated by R2 in milliwatts (mW).
`total_power_mw`	Yes	Total power dissipated by the divider in milliwatts (mW).

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description adds some behavioral context by giving the formula and listing computed quantities. However, it does not disclose underlying assumptions (e.g., ideal resistors, no load on the output) or potential limitations, which would be important for an agent to use correctly.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the tool has an output schema and the description already lists the computed quantities (Vout, current, power, ratio), the description is complete. It also provides practical usage examples, leaving no significant gaps for a calculator tool.

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 roles of R1 (upper) and R2 (lower), the formula, and the computed outputs. This provides context beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions provide.

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 output voltage, current draw, and power dissipation for a resistive voltage divider. It provides the formula and specific application contexts like biasing circuits, level shifting, ADC input scaling, and feedback networks. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning ordering relative to trace_width and power supply output.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (e.g., for biasing circuits, level shifting) and provides guidance on ordering with other tools (e.g., 'Use before trace_width'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear.

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?