openmep
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| size_ductA | Recommend a standard round diameter for one duct run carrying a given CFM, with velocity and friction at that size. Optionally grade an existing round, rect, or oval section as ok, undersized, or oversized. |
| size_duct_networkA | Size every supply, return, exhaust, and outside-air segment of a connected duct network. Each terminal's requiredCfm is carried along its shortest same-system path to equipment and summed per segment; roles (main/branch/runout) are inferred. Returns per-segment recommendations, grades for segments with an existing section, and findings: missing-required-cfm, no-equipment-path, dangling-reference, mixed-system-segment, undersized, oversized. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have related but distinguishable scopes: size_duct handles one run (with optional grading), while size_duct_network sizes a whole connected system. There is mild overlap since both can grade existing sections, but the single-run vs. network boundary is clear enough for correct selection.
Both names use a consistent snake_case noun_verb pattern (size_duct, size_duct_network), with the network variant being a clean, predictable extension. No mixing of conventions.
Two tools is thin for a duct-design server; the single-run case is arguably a degenerate case of the network tool, so it borders on a minimal surface. The network tool is substantial, but the overall set feels sparse.
Coverage of the core duct-sizing workflow (single run plus full multi-system network with grading and findings) is solid for a focused calc tool. Minor gaps exist, e.g. no standalone grading without sizing or explicit design-parameter/friction-rate configuration, but no major dead ends.