ccpp-tools-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pump_tdh

Calculate pump total dynamic head using static lift, line losses, and system pressures. Solve pump head requirements for piping design by accounting for suction and discharge conditions.

Instructions

Pump total dynamic head from static lift, line losses, and pressures.

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": {
      "static_head_m": "<static_head_m>"
    },
    "name": "pump_tdh"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`density_kg_m3`	No
`static_head_m`	Yes
`suction_loss_m`	No
`discharge_loss_m`	No
`source_gauge_kpa`	No
`destination_gauge_kpa`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Default
`method`	Yes
`result`	Yes
`validity`	No	ok
`warnings`	No
`assumptions`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only lists input categories and gives no details about assumptions, defaults (e.g., density), return values, or potential limitations.

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 a single, concise sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately front-loads the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, this description is extremely thin. It lacks essential guidance on formula, parameter defaults, and usage context, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description is the only textual explanation. It maps 'static lift' to static_head_m, 'line losses' to suction/discharge losses, and 'pressures' to gauge pressures, but omits density_kg_m3 and does not explain parameter relationships or units.

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?

The description states that the tool computes pump total dynamic head from static lift, line losses, and pressures. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pump_npsha and pump_power, though the phrasing 'Pump total dynamic head' lacks an explicit verb like 'calculate'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to related tools such as pump_npsha or pump_power.

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

Deploy Server