Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
API Hub MCP — 337+ Tools

API Hub MCP — 337+ Tools

by scotia1973-bot
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

pressure_calc

Calculate pressure, force, or area using the formula P = F/A. Input any two known values to compute the third.

Instructions

Calculate pressure, force, or area using P = F/A.

Parameters:
    force — Force in N (leave 0 if unknown).
    area — Area in m² (leave 0 if unknown).
    pressure — Pressure in Pa (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": "pressure_calc"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNo
areaNo
pressureNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.4.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so description carries burden. It instructs to leave unknown as 0, implying two knowns needed. However, doesn't specify behavior for invalid inputs (e.g., all zero, all non-zero) or return format.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with formula, no wasted words. Each sentence adds essential information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Adequate for a simple tool with output schema, but lacks details on error handling and exact computation behavior. Could specify how exactly it selects which variable to compute.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage; description adds units (N, m², Pa) and usage hint (leave 0 if unknown), which is valuable beyond type information.

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 explicitly states it calculates pressure, force, or area using P = F/A, with clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like force_calc and pressure_convert by covering all three variables.

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 vs alternatives. No when-not or context provided. Implicitly it's for physics calculations, but no explicit direction.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools