math-evaluatorEvaluate mathematical expressions with variables and functions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| precision | No | Decimal precision | |
| variables | No | Custom variables (e.g. {"x": 5, "y": 10}) | |
| expression | Yes | Math expression to evaluate (e.g. "2+3*4", "sin(PI/2)", "sqrt(144)") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and doesn't mention return format, supported function syntax, precision behavior, error handling, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema thoroughly documents the parameters with examples, but the description does not explain the return value or provide usage guidance, and there is no output schema or annotations to fill that gap. It is minimally viable but leaves notable gaps in behavioral and contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters, including examples for expression and variables. The description adds only the high-level mention of 'variables and functions,' which does not meaningfully augment the schema's parameter documentation; baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Evaluate' with a clear resource ('mathematical expressions') and highlights variables and functions, which distinguishes it from sibling calculators that target specific domains (e.g., amazon-fba-calculator, grade-calculator). It clearly states the tool's core capability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool instead of the many sibling calculators or other math-related tools. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, so an agent is left to infer use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as bg-remover, bg-remover-pro, pro-matting, and takumi all performing background removal, and upscaler/upscaler-pro being redundant. With 202 tools, an agent may easily select the wrong one despite detailed descriptions.
Most tools use a consistent kebab-case format with descriptive names like pdf-compress, image-resizer, and tax-return-calc. Exceptions like 'takumi', 'pro-matting', and '-pro' suffixes (bg-remover-pro, upscaler-pro) are minor deviations relative to the total.
202 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server, far exceeding the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. The sheer volume makes it unwieldy for an agent to efficiently navigate and select the right tool.
The tool set provides extensive coverage across many domains, including PDF operations (20+ tools), image editing, financial calculations, e-commerce fee estimation, and YouTube utilities. Minor gaps exist in cross-tool integration, but the breadth is highly comprehensive for the apparent purpose.