Skip to main content
Glama
jeongho54

loadbench-mcp

by jeongho54

beam_check

Check beam or shelf load capacity against bending stress and deflection using simple supports or cantilevers, with point or distributed loads. Returns pass/fail and governing check.

Instructions

Check whether a beam or shelf holds a load: bending stress and deflection.

Closed-form Euler–Bernoulli check. "point" puts the whole load at the centre (simply supported) or the free end (cantilever); "udl" spreads magnitude_n evenly along the span. Give the section either directly (section_modulus_m3 and inertia_m4) OR as a solid rectangle (width_m and height_m).

Args: span_m: clear span / length, metres. support_type: "simply_supported" (held both ends) or "cantilever" (one end). load_type: "point" or "udl" (uniformly distributed). magnitude_n: total load in newtons (1 kg ≈ 9.81 N). e_pa: Young's modulus of the material, pascals (steel ≈ 2.0e11, pine ≈ 9e9). allowable_stress_pa: allowable bending stress of the material, pascals. section_modulus_m3: Z, if known. Else give width_m and height_m. inertia_m4: I, if known. Else give width_m and height_m. width_m, height_m: for a solid rectangle, used to compute Z and I. deflection_limit_ratio: optional, e.g. 250 means limit deflection to span/250.

Returns: max_moment_nm, max_stress_pa, max_deflection_m, stress utilisation, pass/fail, governing check, and a short explanation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
e_paYes
span_mYes
width_mNo
height_mNo
load_typeYes
inertia_m4No
magnitude_nYes
support_typeYes
section_modulus_m3No
allowable_stress_paYes
deflection_limit_ratioNo
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the closed-form method, input combinations, and output fields. It does not mention potential errors, performance, or limitations, but the output list is transparent.

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 well-structured: a brief summary, then clear sections for input details and output. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 11 parameters (6 required), no output schema, and the domain complexity, the description fully covers inputs, outputs, and usage constraints. It leaves no ambiguity for an agent.

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 compensates fully. It explains all 11 parameters, including optional ones and their relationships (e.g., 'Give the section either directly OR as a solid rectangle'). Provides example values for common materials.

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 states the tool checks 'whether a beam or shelf holds a load: bending stress and deflection.' It specifies 'closed-form Euler–Bernoulli check' and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on beam bending, not tipping or support reactions.

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 description explains when to use 'point' vs 'udl' load types and how to specify the section either directly or as a solid rectangle. It does not explicitly exclude cases or compare to sibling tools, but provides clear context for appropriate use.

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/jeongho54/loadbench-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server