Skip to main content
Glama

engineering.rlc_time_constant

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate RC/RL time constants and series RLC damping characteristics (α, ω₀, ζ, regime) from resistance, inductance, and capacitance for circuit analysis.

Instructions

RC, RL, 직렬 RLC 회로의 시정수 또는 감쇠 특성을 구한다. mode='rc'면 τ=RC, 'rl'이면 τ=L/R, 'rlc'면 α=R/(2L), ω₀=1/√(LC), ζ=α/ω₀와 regime(underdamped, critically_damped, overdamped)을 반환한다. 필요한 R(Ω), L(H), C(F)는 모드별로 0 초과 Decimal 문자열이며 빠뜨리면 오류. 오용 주의: ζ는 직렬 RLC 기준이라 병렬 RLC에는 맞지 않는다.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYes
inductanceNo
resistanceNo
capacitanceNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tauNo
zetaNo
_metaNo서버가 붙이는 영수증(integrity), 엔진, 힌트
alphaNo
traceYes계산 근거(tool, formula, inputs, steps, output)
omega0No
regimeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds real behavioral context: required-input failure mode ('빠뜨리면 오류') and a domain caveat about series vs parallel RLC validity. Doesn't state numeric edge behavior (e.g., zero/negative handling beyond '0 초과'), but the added context is substantive.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and formulas, then constraints, then the caveat in three tight sentences with no filler. Every sentence carries actionable 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?

An output schema exists and the description still names the returned quantities, and it covers input constraints and failure behavior. Minor gap: it doesn't say what happens when a parameter irrelevant to the chosen mode is supplied (ignored vs error).

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 carry everything — and it does: it defines the mode values ('rc','rl','rlc'), assigns units and meaning to R/L/C (Ω, H, F), specifies the type constraint (positive Decimal strings) and that they are conditionally required by mode. Clear compensation for the schema gap.

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?

Names concrete verbs and resources (time constant / damping for RC, RL, series RLC) and specifies the exact formulas returned per mode. Very specific, but it never names the adjacent siblings (rc_filter_cutoff, lc_resonant_frequency, second_order_response) that an agent might confuse it with.

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?

Gives mode-based selection rules and states which inputs each mode requires, plus that omissions raise an error. Also includes an explicit misuse warning (ζ assumes series RLC, not parallel). Lacks explicit routing to alternatives, so not a 5.

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