loadbench-mcp
<!-- mcp-name: io.github.jeongho54/loadbench -->
# loadbench-mcp
An MCP server that does the structural load & stability math language models get
wrong. AI assistants call it instead of guessing.
| Tool | Question it answers |
|------|---------------------|
| `check_tipping` | Will these weights topple over their footprint? |
| `solve_supports` | How much load does each leg / bracket carry? |
| `beam_check` | Will this beam or shelf hold the load? (stress + deflection) |
All math is verified against hand-computed answers (`tests/test_physics.py`).
## Install & run
Once published to PyPI, any MCP client can launch it with no install step:
```
uvx loadbench-mcp
```
Or install it:
```
pip install loadbench-mcp
loadbench-mcp
```
## Use it in Claude Desktop
Add to your `claude_desktop_config.json`:
```json
{
"mcpServers": {
"loadbench": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["loadbench-mcp"]
}
}
}
```
Restart Claude Desktop, then ask things like *"A 2 m pine shelf on two brackets
0.3 m from each end — will it hold 40 kg in the middle?"*
## Local development
```
uv run --with mcp --with numpy python -m load_solver.server # run from source
python -m pytest tests # verify the math
```
Inputs are SI units (metres, kilograms, newtons; 1 kg ≈ 9.81 N). Tool docstrings
carry the full argument details, which the model reads automatically.
> Estimates for planning, not certified engineering. For loads where a failure
> could cause injury or real damage, have a qualified engineer check the result.
## License
MIT
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool targets a distinct structural analysis task: beam bending, tipping stability, and support reactions. There is no overlap in functionality, and the descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Two tools follow a verb_noun pattern (check_tipping, solve_supports) while one is noun_verb (beam_check). The naming is clear and readable, but the slight inconsistency prevents a perfect score.
Three tools provide a focused set for basic structural analysis, covering beam checks, tipping, and support reactions. The count is appropriate for the domain without being too sparse or overwhelming.
The tools cover core structural analysis needs for simple loads and supports. Missing features like shear checks or multiple load combinations are minor gaps, but the set is functional for its stated purpose.