embedcalc-mcp

Junction Temperature / Max Power

embedcalc_junction_temp

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calculate junction temperature from ambient temperature, power dissipation, and thermal resistance. Also determine maximum allowable power for a given junction temperature limit.

Instructions

Thermal check: Tj = Ta + P·θJA, and max dissipable power for a Tj limit.

Args: ambient_c, power_w, theta_ja (°C/W from datasheet), tj_max_c (default 150). Returns (structured): { tj_c, p_max_w, margin_c, ok }. Example: Ta=25, P=2W, θJA=50 -> Tj=125°C, Pmax=2.5W @ Tj_max 150.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ambient_c": "<ambient_c>",
      "power_w": "<power_w>",
      "theta_ja": "<theta_ja>"
    },
    "name": "embedcalc_junction_temp"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`power_w`	Yes	Dissipated power in W
`theta_ja`	Yes	Junction-to-ambient thermal resistance °C/W
`tj_max_c`	No	Maximum junction temperature rating in °C
`ambient_c`	Yes	Ambient temperature in °C

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes
`tj_c`	Yes
`p_max_w`	Yes
`margin_c`	Yes	tj_max - tj (negative = over limit)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the computational formula and return structure, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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?

Two concise sentences plus an example. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the core formula.

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 full schema coverage, output schema description, and annotations, the description is complete. It includes the formula, parameter list, return structure, and an example.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description further explains each parameter's role and provides a default for tj_max_c, adding value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it computes junction temperature and maximum dissipable power using a standard thermal formula. It uniquely identifies the tool among siblings as the only thermal calculation tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the formula and examples, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Given siblings are unrelated, implied usage is acceptable.

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