Skip to main content
Glama
IBM

Physics MCP Server

by IBM

simulate_underwater_motion

Simulate underwater projectile trajectories by calculating motion with drag, buoyancy, and gravity forces to model realistic aquatic movement.

Instructions

Simulate underwater projectile motion with drag and buoyancy.

Uses numerical integration to simulate motion under:
- Gravity (downward)
- Buoyancy (upward, from displaced fluid)
- Drag (opposes motion)

Args:
    initial_velocity: Initial velocity [x, y, z] in m/s
    mass: Object mass in kg
    volume: Object volume in m³
    cross_sectional_area: Cross-sectional area in m²
    fluid_density: Fluid density in kg/m³ (default 1000 for water)
    fluid_viscosity: Fluid viscosity in Pa·s (default 1.002e-3 for water)
    initial_position: Initial position [x, y, z] in m (default [0,0,0])
    drag_coefficient: Drag coefficient (default 0.47 for sphere)
    gravity: Gravitational acceleration in m/s² (default 9.81)
    duration: Simulation duration in seconds (default 10.0)
    dt: Time step in seconds (default 0.01)

Returns:
    Complete trajectory, final state, max depth, and total distance

Example - Torpedo launch:
    result = await simulate_underwater_motion(
        initial_velocity=[20, 0, 0],  # 20 m/s forward
        mass=100,  # kg
        volume=0.05,  # m³
        cross_sectional_area=0.03,  # m²
        fluid_density=1000,  # water
        drag_coefficient=0.04,  # streamlined
        duration=30.0
    )

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
initial_velocityYes
massYes
volumeYes
cross_sectional_areaYes
fluid_densityNo
fluid_viscosityNo
initial_positionNo
drag_coefficientNo
gravityNo
durationNo
dtNo
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a simulation tool using numerical integration, lists the physical forces modeled (gravity, buoyancy, drag), describes the return format ('Complete trajectory, final state, max depth, and total distance'), and provides a detailed example. It doesn't mention computational limits or error handling, but covers the core behavior well.

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 (purpose, forces, args, returns, example) and front-loaded key information. It's appropriately sized for an 11-parameter simulation tool, though the example is detailed and could be slightly condensed. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 the complexity (11 parameters, simulation tool), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job of providing context. It explains the simulation method, forces, parameters, returns, and includes a practical example. The main gap is the lack of an explicit output schema, but the return description partially compensates. For a tool with this complexity, it's nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides comprehensive parameter documentation: each of the 11 parameters is listed with clear descriptions, units, and default values where applicable. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, making the tool usable without relying on schema descriptions.

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 ('simulate underwater projectile motion with drag and buoyancy') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'calculate_projectile_motion' or 'calculate_projectile_with_drag' by specifying the underwater context and inclusion of buoyancy. It uses precise technical language that defines the exact scope.

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 ('Torpedo launch') and lists the physical forces involved, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_projectile_with_drag' or other simulation tools. There's no direct comparison or exclusion guidance for 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