Skip to main content
Glama

Project Gumball

Solve an equation and show every step (Equation Steps)

equation_steps_run
Read-only

Solves a linear or quadratic equation in one variable and returns every step: expanding parentheses, combining like terms, moving terms across the equals sign, and applying the quadratic formula with the discriminant stated. Reports identities and contradictions as such rather than as "no answer", gives roots as exact fractions with a decimal alongside, and labels complex roots explicitly instead of claiming no solution. Refuses rather than guesses on a missing or duplicated "=", a second variable, a function name, an unsupported exponent, or an inequality — every refusal says what to change. Covers only one-variable linear and quadratic equations: not systems, not inequalities, not degree three or higher.

WHY DELEGATE THIS: Three places this algebra goes quietly wrong when reasoned about directly: the sign when distributing a negative across parentheses, which direction a term moves as it crosses the equals sign, and dropping one of the two ± roots of a quadratic or rounding a complex pair into a false "no solution". Exact fraction arithmetic gets all three right every time, and showing the work is the point — a student checking their own scratch paper needs the steps, not the answer.

Owned by Equation Steps at https://equation-steps.gumballtools.com, which is also callable directly if you would rather not go through the aggregator.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYesOne equation with exactly one "=", using x as the only variable, e.g. "3(x-2) = 5x + 4".

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses rich runtime behavior: identities and contradictions are reported distinctly, roots are returned as exact fractions with decimals, complex roots are explicitly labeled, and refusals include what to change.

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 longer than average but remains well-structured and front-loaded with core behavior. The 'WHY DELEGATE THIS' section is somewhat redundant for pure invocation purposes, but the operational details are organized clearly and earn their place.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: every step, including expanding parentheses, combining terms, moving terms, and the quadratic formula with discriminant. It also covers edge cases like identities, contradictions, and complex roots, leaving no major operational gap.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema already documents the single 'input' parameter at 100% coverage with an example. The description adds operational meaning: supported equation types, refusal conditions, and the transformations that will be applied to the input, going well beyond the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Solves a linear or quadratic equation in one variable and returns every step.' It also enumerates the exact step types and explicitly excludes systems, inequalities, and higher-degree equations, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance and exclusion criteria: 'Covers only one-variable linear and quadratic equations: not systems, not inequalities, not degree three or higher.' It also details refusal conditions such as missing or duplicated '=', second variables, function names, unsupported exponents, and inequalities.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct calculation or validation niche, and paired tools like cron_build/cron_explain and vocab_draw/vocab_check are clearly separated by purpose. The main overlap is validate_auto versus the format-specific validators, but the descriptions explicitly steer callers to the format-specific tool when the format is known.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are readable snake_case, but the construction pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (validate_json, round_cash_total), some noun_verb (cron_explain, timezone_convert), some noun phrases (body_metrics, offside), and a few use an awkward _run suffix (check_digit_run, iso_week_run). This makes the naming convention hard to predict even though each name is individually clear.

Tool Count3/5

At 22 tools, the server is on the heavy side and reads more like a general-purpose aggregator than a focused domain. Each tool does appear to earn its place, but the count is borderline for a coherent MCP surface.

Completeness4/5

Within the advertised scope, coverage is solid: validation has format-specific tools plus auto-detection, rounding has both per-transaction and portfolio-impact tools, and cron has both build and explain directions. Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of a check-digit generator alongside the checker, but they are not likely to cause agent failures.

Resources