Claidex MCP

Run Computation

run_computation

Evaluate deterministic mathematical expressions with optional variables. Use for algebra, matrices, vectors, transformations, descriptive numerical checks, and reproducible calculations. Does not execute arbitrary JavaScript or install packages.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`variables`	Yes	Variables available to the expression. Values must be numbers, strings, vectors, or matrices.
`expression`	Yes	MathJS expression, e.g. mean(values), std(values), multiply(A, b), inv(A).

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses deterministic behavior and safety constraints (no arbitrary JS, no package installation). It does not mention return shape or error handling, but for a pure math evaluator this is substantial.

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?

Two sentences with the primary action first and usage/exclusion logic second. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has only two well-documented parameters and no output schema. Description covers scope and exclusions, but lacks an explicit statement about return values or error behavior; for a simple evaluator this is mostly complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description says 'with optional variables' while the schema requires the `variables` property. This is misleading; an agent may omit a required field. The description adds no helpful parameter semantics beyond schema.

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?

States 'Evaluate deterministic mathematical expressions with optional variables,' giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like run_statistical_analysis by focusing on algebra/matrices/vectors and explicitly non-JavaScript.

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?

Explicitly lists intended use cases ('algebra, matrices, vectors, transformations, descriptive numerical checks, reproducible calculations') and exclusions ('Does not execute arbitrary JavaScript or install packages'). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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

All Claidex MCP tools Inspect

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

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping responsibilities: search, search_claims, search_preprint_flags, and claidex_claim_risk_matrix all query claim/failure data, while rank_documents_by_embedding and rerank_documents both perform relevance ranking. The compatibility-oriented fetch/search tools add further confusion because their names collide with fetch_research_url and search_claims.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are grouped by prefixes (claidex_, query_, search_, run_) but the groups use different conventions, and bare verbs like 'fetch' and 'search' sit alongside prefixed forms like 'fetch_research_url' and 'search_claims'. The pattern is readable but not uniform.

Tool Count3/5

24 tools is at the heavy end for an MCP server; while the breadth reflects many biomedical data sources and utilities, the count includes several meta/compatibility tools that could be consolidated. It is borderline but not unreasonable.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core biomedical workflows: searching claims, retrieving full claim content, querying failure graphs, checking preprints, and looking up drugs/trials/targets/adverse events. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to fetch a single clinical trial by ID beyond the search function, and no write/update operations for claims, but these are likely outside the read-only research scope.

Resources

Need Help?