Skip to main content
Glama

antenna_gain

Validate antenna gain claims against physical limits; compute aperture gain, beamwidth, and far-field distance from size and frequency. Use it to check if a quoted gain is physically possible.

Instructions

Calculate antenna aperture gain limits, beamwidth, far-field distance; validate gain claims.

For a circular aperture of diameter D (or an aperture of area A, converted to the equivalent circular diameter D = sqrt(4A/pi)) computes the planar-aperture directivity D_0 = 4piA/lambda^2 = (piD/lambda)^2 (aperture efficiency eta = 1), Harrington's bound D_max = (ka)^2 + 2ka (k = 2pi/lambda, a = D/2) for any antenna enclosed in a sphere of diameter D, the hard physical gain limit max(D_0, D_max) (numerically D_max; equal to D_0 to within 0.1 dB for D >> lambda, but several dB higher for electrically small antennas D < lambda, e.g. a 2.15 dBi dipole in a 0.1 m footprint at 900 MHz is valid although D_0 = -0.5 dBi), and the typical gain G = etaD_0 at the given efficiency (default eta = 0.55, parabolic dish). The limiting_bound field reports 'harrington' for D < lambda and 'aperture' for D >= lambda. Also returns the effective aperture A_e = etaA, a half-power beamwidth estimate (HPBW ~ 70lambda/D degrees for a tapered reflector; 58.4lambda/D for a uniformly illuminated circular aperture) and the far-field (Fraunhofer) distance 2*D^2/lambda.

If claimed_gain_dbi is given it is validated: a claim above the physical limit is rejected as a physics violation; a claim between the typical gain and the physical limit is accepted with a warning and the implied planar-aperture efficiency eta = G_claim / D_0 is reported.

Use this tool when you need to:

  • Check whether a quoted antenna gain is consistent with its size and frequency

  • Estimate the gain, beamwidth or effective aperture of a dish of known diameter

  • Find the minimum far-field range for antenna measurements or Friis validity

  • Size an antenna for a required gain at a given frequency

Returns a PhysicalViolationError dict if any input violates physics or the claimed gain exceeds the aperture limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
diameter_mNoCircular aperture diameter in meters. Provide this OR aperture_area_m2.
frequency_hzYesOperating frequency in Hz (must be > 0)
aperture_area_m2NoPhysical aperture area in m^2. Provide this OR diameter_m.
claimed_gain_dbiNoOptional antenna gain claim to validate in dBi
aperture_efficiencyNoEfficiency for the typical gain / warning threshold (default: 0.55 for a parabolic dish; the hard limit is max(eta = 1 aperture value, Harrington bound))

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains the computational model, aperture-efficiency assumption, Harrington bound, hard gain limit, limiting_bound selection logic, validation behavior for claimed gain, warning thresholds, and the PhysicalViolationError return for invalid inputs. This gives the agent a detailed behavioral model without needing annotations.

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 long, but every sentence earns its place for a calculation-heavy tool. It front-loads the core purpose, then supplies formulas, defaults, boundary behavior, and use cases in a logical structure. The density is justified by the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is complete: all inputs are explained, the key computed outputs are enumerated, validation and error behavior are disclosed, and use cases are specified. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool and understand its behavior is missing.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: the diameter-area equivalence via D = sqrt(4A/pi), the default efficiency context (0.55 for parabolic dish), the meaning of claimed_gain_dbi validation, and the physical constraints. This is far more than a restatement of parameter names or types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Calculate antenna aperture gain limits, beamwidth, far-field distance; validate gain claims.' It clearly names the domain and outputs, and the use-case list differentiates it from RF link budget, Shannon-Hartley, noise floor, and radar tools. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and why it is distinct.

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 'Use this tool when you need to' list gives explicit scenarios: checking quoted gain consistency, estimating dish parameters, finding far-field range, and sizing an antenna for required gain. It provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use them. Therefore it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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