API Hub MCP — 337+ Tools

force_calc

Compute force, mass, or acceleration via F=ma. Input any two variables to solve for the third.

Instructions

Calculate force, mass, or acceleration using F = ma.

Parameters:
    mass — Mass in kg (leave 0 if unknown).
    acceleration — Acceleration in m/s² (leave 0 if unknown).
    force — Force in N (leave 0 if unknown).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "force_calc"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mass`	No
`acceleration`	No
`force`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.4.1Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior like how it handles invalid inputs (e.g., all three parameters zero) and whether it returns an error or the computed value. It only lists parameters without clarifying the required input combination or output format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is clear, but it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points or a table). Still, it's efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema (as per context), but the description doesn't reference it or explain what the tool returns. It also lacks handling of edge cases. For a simple calculator, more completeness is expected.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds critical meaning: units (kg, m/s², N) and the instruction to leave unknown as 0. This helps the agent understand how to provide inputs, though it could explain the relationship more explicitly.

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 clearly states 'Calculate force, mass, or acceleration using F = ma' which is specific and verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gravitational_force_calc or kinetic_energy_calc.

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 on when to use this tool vs other physics calculators, nor any instructions on prerequisites like requiring exactly two known values. The description does not say when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server