Physics MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well. It explains the calculation logic, the optional nature of applied_force, and what the return values represent. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but for a calculation tool, the behavioral disclosure is quite good.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core formula and purpose, then details parameters and returns, and ends with a practical example. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a calculation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the physics, parameters, return values, and provides an example. It could mention units more explicitly for all parameters or error handling, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It successfully explains all three parameters: normal_force (in Newtons), coefficient_static_friction (μ_s), and applied_force (optional, in Newtons). The example further clarifies usage and parameter relationships.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific purpose: calculating maximum static friction force using the formula f_s,max = μ_s × N, and determining whether an object will slip under applied force. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on static friction specifically, unlike other tools that handle different physics calculations like kinetic energy, torque, or collisions.

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

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

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for static friction calculations and slip determination. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the physics context and sibling tool names imply it's for static friction scenarios versus other force or motion calculations.

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