Skip to main content
Glama

TrueCalci

by com.truecalci

projectile_motion

Calculate 2D classical mechanics projectile kinematics: maximum trajectory apex height, horizontal flight range, total time of flight, and terminal impact velocity.

Behavior: Deterministic, idempotent calculation with zero external side effects. Assumes vacuum projectile motion with constant gravitational acceleration: Flight Time t = (2 * v0 * sin(theta)) / g; Max Height H = (v0 * sin(theta))^2 / (2 * g); Range R = (v0^2 * sin(2*theta)) / g. Returns trajectory coordinates, apex coordinates, and velocity components (vx, vy).

Usage Guidelines: Use for ballistic trajectories, physics problem solving, and aerospace launch kinematics without atmospheric drag. Do not use for orbital delta-v rocket staging; use rocket_deltav instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gravityMs2NoLocal gravitational acceleration constant g in m/s^2. Default is 9.80665 (standard Earth gravity).
initialVelocityMsYesInitial launch velocity magnitude v0 in meters per second (m/s). Must be positive.
launchAngleDegreesYesLaunch elevation angle theta relative to the horizontal plane in degrees (0 to 90 inclusive).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / gravityMs2 / description
      Previous value: -"Gravitational acceleration in m/s^2"New value: +"Local gravitational acceleration constant g in m/s^2. Default is 9.80665 (standard Earth gravity)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / initialVelocityMs / description
      Previous value: -"Initial launch velocity v0 in m/s"New value: +"Initial launch velocity magnitude v0 in meters per second (m/s). Must be positive."
    • changedInput schema / properties / launchAngleDegrees / description
      Previous value: -"Launch angle in degrees (0 to 90)"New value: +"Launch elevation angle theta relative to the horizontal plane in degrees (0 to 90 inclusive)."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses determinism, idempotence, zero side effects, the vacuum/constant-gravity assumption, the governing equations, and the returned components. This is rich, accurate behavioral context beyond what structured data could provide.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, behavior, equations, return values, and usage boundaries are all covered without repetition. The content is front-loaded with the core calculation summary before the detailed behavior and usage.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a deterministic calculation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains assumptions, formulas, return values, and usage boundaries, so an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description references v0, theta, and g in formulas, but adds little beyond the schema. Per the rubric baseline, a 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific calculation domain (2D projectile kinematics), lists the exact outputs (apex height, range, flight time, impact velocity), and distinguishes itself from rocket_deltav. An agent can clearly identify what this tool computes and how it differs from sibling physics/finance calculators.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('ballistic trajectories, physics problem solving, aerospace launch kinematics without atmospheric drag') and when not to use it ('Do not use for orbital delta-v rocket staging; use rocket_deltav instead'). This gives unambiguous routing guidance.

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

All TrueCalci toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a separate calculation formula or regulatory context, and descriptions include explicit 'do not use... use X instead' cross-references that clearly separate similar calculators. Even overlapping financial/loan/tax tools are disambiguated by geography, employment model, or specific formula.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names are lowercase snake_case and follow a domain/acronym-plus-descriptor pattern, making the set visually and structurally consistent. Minor outliers like casio_991_solve and heavy acronyms (npv_irr, scorp_optimizer) prevent it from being perfectly uniform.

Tool Count2/5

At 28 tools, the server is above the 25-tool threshold that makes broad tool scanning costly for an agent. Every calculator is distinct, but the mix of unrelated domains (tax, fluid mechanics, rocket equations, restaurant tips) means most agents will only ever need a small subset.

Completeness4/5

The set covers a wide range of self-contained calculation domains, from finance and tax to physics and everyday bills, with no obvious dead ends—each tool returns a complete result. Missing general-purpose utilities such as unit/currency conversion or descriptive statistics are notable gaps, but they are workaroundable and don't break the server's specialized calculator model.

Resources