Skip to main content
Glama
IBM

Physics MCP Server

by IBM

calculate_drag_force

Calculate drag force on objects moving through fluids using velocity, area, density, and drag coefficient inputs. Returns force vector, magnitude, and Reynolds number for physics analysis.

Instructions

Calculate drag force for an object moving through a fluid.

The drag force opposes motion and is given by:
    F_drag = 0.5 * ρ * v² * C_d * A

Common drag coefficients:
    - Sphere: 0.47
    - Streamlined shape: 0.04
    - Flat plate (perpendicular): 1.28
    - Human (standing): 1.0-1.3
    - Car: 0.25-0.35

Args:
    velocity: Velocity vector [x, y, z] in m/s (or JSON string)
    cross_sectional_area: Area perpendicular to flow in m²
    fluid_density: Fluid density in kg/m³ (water=1000, air=1.225)
    drag_coefficient: Drag coefficient (default 0.47 for sphere)
    viscosity: Dynamic viscosity in Pa·s (water=1.002e-3, air=1.825e-5, oil=0.1).
        If not provided, estimated from fluid_density for Reynolds number calculation.

Returns:
    Drag force vector, magnitude, and Reynolds number

Example - Ball falling through water:
    result = await calculate_drag_force(
        velocity=[0, -5.0, 0],
        cross_sectional_area=0.00785,  # π * (0.05m)² for 10cm diameter
        fluid_density=1000,  # water
        drag_coefficient=0.47,
        viscosity=1.002e-3  # water viscosity for accurate Reynolds number
    )
    # Returns upward drag force opposing downward motion

Example - Ball falling through motor oil:
    result = await calculate_drag_force(
        velocity=[0, -2.0, 0],
        cross_sectional_area=0.00785,
        fluid_density=900,  # oil
        drag_coefficient=0.47,
        viscosity=0.1  # motor oil is much more viscous
    )

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
velocityYes
cross_sectional_areaYes
fluid_densityYes
drag_coefficientNo
viscosityNo
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 explaining the tool returns drag force vector, magnitude, and Reynolds number. It also clarifies that viscosity is optional and will be estimated if not provided, and provides realistic default values for common scenarios. However, it doesn't mention computational limitations or error handling.

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 with formula, parameter explanations, examples, and returns information. While comprehensive, it could be more front-loaded - the core purpose appears immediately, but the detailed examples come later. Every sentence adds value for understanding drag force calculations.

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 5-parameter physics calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: formula, parameter semantics, examples, and return information. It covers the essential physics context well, though it doesn't explicitly mention units consistency requirements or validation behavior.

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: velocity as a vector with units, cross-sectional area definition, fluid density with common values, drag coefficient with defaults and examples, and viscosity behavior with estimation logic. Each parameter's meaning and typical values are clearly explained 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 explicitly states the tool calculates drag force for an object moving through a fluid, providing the specific formula F_drag = 0.5 * ρ * v² * C_d * A. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like calculate_lift_force or calculate_magnus_force by focusing specifically on drag 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 provides implied usage through examples (ball falling through water/oil) and common drag coefficient values, suggesting when to use this tool for drag calculations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like calculate_projectile_with_drag or calculate_terminal_velocity, which are related sibling tools.

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