Skip to main content
Glama

engineering.gear_torque_transmission

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculates output torque through a gear pair from input torque, driver and driven tooth counts, and efficiency, while returning the gear ratio.

Instructions

기어쌍을 통과한 출력 토크 τ_out = τ_in·(피동 잇수/구동 잇수)·η 를 계산하고 기어비도 반환한다. 출력 토크는 input_torque 와 같은 단위(예: N·m)이고 efficiency 는 기본 1, [0, 1] 범위의 소수여야 한다(95 가 아니라 0.95). 속도는 기어비에 반비례해 변하므로 출력 속도는 별도로 구해야 한다. 반올림 없이 50자리 유효숫자.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
efficiencyNo1
input_torqueYes
teeth_drivenYes
teeth_driverYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_metaNo서버가 붙이는 영수증(integrity), 엔진, 힌트
ratioYes
traceYes계산 근거(tool, formula, inputs, steps, output)
output_torqueYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent behavior, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the exact formula, unit preservation for output torque, the efficiency default and valid decimal range, and the no-rounding 50-significant-digit precision requirement.

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 front-loaded with the formula and then adds only high-value constraints: unit preservation, efficiency format, speed caveat, and precision. Every sentence contributes directly to correct invocation.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple engineering calculation with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: formula, parameter roles, efficiency constraints, unit behavior, speed-related caveat, and precision expectations. No critical invocation detail is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps the parameters through the formula (driven vs driver teeth), specifies that output torque uses the same unit as input_torque, and clarifies that efficiency defaults to 1 and must be a decimal in [0, 1] such as 0.95 rather than 95.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific calculation verb and resource: output torque through a gear pair, including the exact formula and the fact that gear ratio is also returned. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as engineering.gear_ratio.

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 by giving the torque-transmission formula and noting that output speed must be calculated separately. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like engineering.gear_ratio or engineering.torque_rotational_power.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools