Skip to main content
Glama
IBM

Physics MCP Server

by IBM

calculate_lift_force

Calculate lift force for aircraft wings and aerodynamic surfaces using the standard lift equation L = ½ρv²CₗA, accounting for velocity, wing area, lift coefficient, and fluid density.

Instructions

Calculate lift force using: L = (1/2) ρ v² C_L A.

Based on Bernoulli's principle and wing aerodynamics.

Args:
    velocity: Flow velocity in m/s
    wing_area: Wing area in m²
    lift_coefficient: Lift coefficient C_L (dimensionless)
    fluid_density: Fluid density in kg/m³ (air=1.225)

Returns:
    Dict containing:
        - lift_force: Lift force in Newtons
        - dynamic_pressure: Dynamic pressure (q) in Pascals

Example - Aircraft wing:
    result = await calculate_lift_force(
        velocity=70,  # m/s (~250 km/h)
        wing_area=20.0,  # m²
        lift_coefficient=1.2,
        fluid_density=1.225
    )

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
velocityYes
wing_areaYes
lift_coefficientYes
fluid_densityNo
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by specifying the exact formula, units for inputs/outputs, and a detailed example. It clearly indicates this is a calculation tool (not destructive), though it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 efficiently structured with formula, theoretical basis, parameter details, return format, and a practical example - all in well-organized sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and key information is front-loaded with the formula.

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?

For a calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage: formula, parameter semantics, return format, and example. It could potentially mention error conditions or validation rules, but given the tool's mathematical nature, it's quite complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed parameter explanations: physical meanings, units, and even a default value for fluid_density. Each of the 4 parameters is clearly documented with context beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 specific action ('calculate lift force'), provides the exact formula (L = (1/2) ρ v² C_L A), and references Bernoulli's principle and wing aerodynamics. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'calculate_drag_force' or 'calculate_normal_force' by focusing specifically on lift force calculation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage through the example (aircraft wing application) and formula context, suggesting it's for aerodynamic lift calculations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_drag_force' or 'calculate_magnus_force', nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/IBM/chuk-mcp-physics'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server