Skip to main content
Glama
IBM

Physics MCP Server

by IBM

calculate_elastic_collision

Calculate final velocities and kinetic energy after a perfectly elastic collision in one dimension using conservation of momentum and energy.

Instructions

Calculate final velocities after a 1D elastic collision.

Uses conservation of momentum and energy to solve for final velocities.
Assumes perfectly elastic collision (no energy loss).

Args:
    mass1: Mass of first object in kg
    velocity1: Initial velocity of first object in m/s (1D)
    mass2: Mass of second object in kg
    velocity2: Initial velocity of second object in m/s (1D)

Returns:
    Dict containing:
        - final_velocity1: Final velocity of object 1 in m/s
        - final_velocity2: Final velocity of object 2 in m/s
        - initial_kinetic_energy: Total KE before (J)
        - final_kinetic_energy: Total KE after (J) - should equal initial
        - initial_momentum: Total momentum before (kg⋅m/s)
        - final_momentum: Total momentum after (kg⋅m/s) - should equal initial

Example - Pool ball collision:
    result = await calculate_elastic_collision(
        mass1=0.17,      # kg (pool ball)
        velocity1=2.0,   # m/s (moving right)
        mass2=0.17,      # kg (pool ball)
        velocity2=0.0    # m/s (stationary)
    )
    # Result: ball 1 stops, ball 2 moves at 2.0 m/s

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mass1Yes
velocity1Yes
mass2Yes
velocity2Yes
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the physics assumptions (perfectly elastic, 1D) and the full set of return values. It does not discuss edge cases or potential errors, but for a pure calculation tool, it is reasonably transparent.

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 clear sections for Args, Returns, and Example. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'conservation of momentum and energy'), but overall it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return dict and includes a concrete example. It partially covers parameter semantics (units). Missing constraints like positive mass, but for a physics tool it is fairly complete among many sibling tools.

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 coverage is 0% with 4 parameters lacking descriptions. The description adds units (kg, m/s) and clarifies that velocities are 1D. It does not specify allowed ranges (e.g., mass > 0), but the provided information is meaningful beyond the bare schema.

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 final velocities after a 1D elastic collision using conservation of momentum and energy. It distinguishes itself from siblings like calculate_inelastic_collision_3d by specifying 'elastic' and '1D'.

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 specifies it's for perfectly elastic collisions in 1D, with an example of pool ball collision. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with 3D version, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select the appropriate tool.

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