newton
Server Details
Newton MCP — wraps the Newton math solver API (free, no auth)
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- pipeworx-io/mcp-newton
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.8/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
The tools fall into two distinct groups—mathematical operations (derive, factor, integrate, simplify) and memory/utility functions (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools, forget, recall, remember)—with clear boundaries between groups. However, within the mathematical group, derive and integrate serve complementary calculus purposes but could be confused for similar symbolic manipulation tasks, and factor and simplify overlap in algebraic simplification contexts, creating some ambiguity.
Naming is inconsistent across the tool set. Mathematical tools use imperative verbs (derive, factor, integrate, simplify) in a consistent style, but memory tools mix verb forms (recall, remember, forget) with noun-based names (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools). The lack of a unified pattern, such as all verb_noun or all imperative, reduces predictability and readability.
With 9 tools, the count is reasonable and well-scoped for a server combining mathematical computation and memory/utility functions. It avoids being overly sparse or bloated, though the dual-purpose nature might feel slightly broad; each tool earns its place without obvious redundancy or excess.
For the mathematical domain, core operations (derivative, integral, factoring, simplification) are covered, but gaps exist like equation solving or graphing. For memory/utility, basic CRUD (remember, recall, forget) is present, and ask_pipeworx and discover_tools add query capabilities, but there's no update function for memories, and the integration between math and utility tools is not fully articulated, leaving minor workflow gaps.
Available Tools
9 toolsask_pipeworxAInspect
Ask a question in plain English and get an answer from the best available data source. Pipeworx picks the right tool, fills the arguments, and returns the result. No need to browse tools or learn schemas — just describe what you need. Examples: "What is the US trade deficit with China?", "Look up adverse events for ozempic", "Get Apple's latest 10-K filing".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes | Your question or request in natural language |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining key behaviors: Pipeworx picks the right tool, fills arguments automatically, and returns results. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but covers the core workflow adequately.
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 efficiently structured: first sentence states core functionality, second explains the automation benefit, third provides concrete examples. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to understand quickly.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and how to use it. It could mention response format or error cases, but given the simplicity and the examples provided, it's mostly complete for agent understanding.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'question' parameter. The description adds context by emphasizing 'natural language' and providing examples, but doesn't add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('ask a question', 'get an answer') and resources ('best available data source'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing natural language processing and automated tool selection, unlike tools like 'derive' or 'integrate' which likely require structured inputs.
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?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: use when you want to ask questions in plain English without browsing tools or learning schemas. It gives clear examples ('What is the US trade deficit with China?') and contrasts with implied alternatives (manual tool selection).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
deriveAInspect
Find the derivative of an expression with respect to x. Input algebraic notation (e.g., "x^2"). Returns the derivative.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expression | Yes | Expression to differentiate (e.g., "x^2", "sin(x)", "x^3+2x^2+x") |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool computes derivatives, implying a read-only operation, but does not address potential errors (e.g., invalid input), performance considerations, or output format details. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic function.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a helpful example. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks depth. Without annotations or an output schema, it does not cover error handling, output format, or limitations, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior in more complex scenarios.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'expression' parameter with examples. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the parameter's purpose and providing an additional example ('x^2' → '2 x'), but does not explain syntax constraints or edge cases beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Compute the derivative') and resource ('mathematical expression'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'integrate' and 'simplify' by focusing on differentiation. It provides a concrete example ('x^2' → '2 x') that illustrates the transformation.
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?
The description implies usage for mathematical differentiation tasks, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'integrate' or 'simplify'. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, such as handling non-differentiable expressions or specifying the variable of differentiation beyond the implied 'x'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
discover_toolsAInspect
Search the Pipeworx tool catalog by describing what you need. Returns the most relevant tools with names and descriptions. Call this FIRST when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones for your task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of tools to return (default 20, max 50) | |
| query | Yes | Natural language description of what you want to do (e.g., "analyze housing market trends", "look up FDA drug approvals", "find trade data between countries") |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a search operation ('search the Pipeworx tool catalog'), returns results ('returns the most relevant tools with names and descriptions'), and has a specific use case (large catalogs). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, which would be helpful for a tool with no annotations.
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 highly concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and output, while the second provides critical usage guidance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search function with 2 parameters), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and output format. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on behavioral aspects like error handling or result structure, but it's sufficient for effective use.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (query and limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, provide examples beyond the schema's query examples, or clarify edge cases. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search the Pipeworx tool catalog') and resources ('tool catalog'), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it should be called 'FIRST when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones for your task.' This provides clear differentiation from other tools like derive, factor, integrate, and simplify.
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?
The description provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Call this FIRST when you have 500+ tools available and need to find the right ones for your task.' This gives clear context on when to use it (large tool catalogs, initial discovery) and implies alternatives (other tools like derive, factor, etc.) should be used after discovery. The guidance is specific and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
factorAInspect
Factor a polynomial into irreducible factors. Input polynomial (e.g., "x^2-1" or "x^2+3x+2"). Returns factored form.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expression | Yes | Polynomial expression to factor (e.g., "x^2-1", "x^2+3x+2") |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it describes the core function (factoring polynomials with examples), it lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid inputs, unsupported expressions), performance characteristics, or output format beyond the examples. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in edge cases.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose clearly in the first phrase and using two illustrative examples that efficiently demonstrate the tool's functionality. Every sentence (and example) earns its place by reinforcing understanding without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic use but incomplete for robust agent interaction. It covers the core purpose and examples but lacks details on output format, error conditions, and limitations relative to sibling tools, which could hinder effective tool selection and invocation.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'expression' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by repeating the parameter concept in the examples but does not provide additional syntax, constraints, or format details beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Factor a polynomial expression') and provides concrete examples that illustrate the transformation from input to output. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'derive', 'integrate', and 'simplify' by focusing specifically on factorization rather than differentiation, integration, or simplification.
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?
The description implies usage through the examples (e.g., factoring quadratic expressions), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'simplify' or 'derive'. There is no guidance on prerequisites, limitations (e.g., polynomial degree), or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
forgetBInspect
Delete a stored memory by key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Memory key to delete |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description lacks details on permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, error handling (e.g., if the key doesn't exist), or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's action and target. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Delete' and avoids any redundant or unnecessary wording, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical behavioral aspects like permanence, error responses, or security implications, which are essential for safe and effective use in a memory management context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'key' documented as 'Memory key to delete'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only restating 'by key' without explaining key format, constraints, or examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter clarity.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and the resource ('a stored memory by key'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'remember' (store) and 'recall' (retrieve), establishing its unique role in memory management.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that a memory must exist to be deleted), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'recall' (for viewing) or 'remember' (for storing), leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
integrateAInspect
Find the indefinite integral of an expression with respect to x. Input algebraic notation (e.g., "x^2"). Returns antiderivative with constant C.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expression | Yes | Expression to integrate (e.g., "x^2", "cos(x)", "x^3+x") |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation (indefinite integration) and variable (x), but lacks behavioral details such as supported expression types, error handling (e.g., for invalid inputs), computational limits, or output format. The description does not contradict annotations (none exist).
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a helpful example. Every element earns its place without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic operation and parameter intent, but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error cases, output structure) and does not fully compensate for the absence of structured metadata, leaving the agent with incomplete context.
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, with the 'expression' parameter fully documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the parameter's purpose with examples ('x^2', 'cos(x)'), but does not provide additional syntax, constraints, or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('compute') and resource ('indefinite integral of a mathematical expression'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the operation (integration vs. derivation, factorization, or simplification). The example 'x^2' → '(1/3)x^3' concretely illustrates the transformation.
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?
The description implies usage for indefinite integration with respect to x, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'derive' (differentiation), 'factor' (factoring), or 'simplify' (algebraic simplification). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
recallAInspect
Retrieve a previously stored memory by key, or list all stored memories (omit key). Use this to retrieve context you saved earlier in the session or in previous sessions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Memory key to retrieve (omit to list all keys) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool can retrieve from current or previous sessions, and it has dual functionality (retrieve by key vs list all). However, it doesn't mention important aspects like error handling (what happens if key doesn't exist), performance characteristics, or whether listing all memories has pagination/limits.
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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the dual functionality clearly, and the second provides essential context about session persistence. No wasted words or redundant information.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and usage pattern well, but doesn't address what the return values look like (especially important since there's no output schema) or potential limitations of the listing functionality.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the optional 'key' parameter and its purpose. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the dual behavior pattern ('omit to list all keys'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieve', 'list') and resources ('previously stored memory', 'all stored memories'). It distinguishes the dual functionality (retrieve by key vs list all) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remember' or 'forget' which likely handle memory storage and deletion respectively.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('retrieve context you saved earlier') and includes a usage pattern ('omit key to list all keys'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., when to use 'remember' vs 'recall').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
rememberAInspect
Store a key-value pair in your session memory. Use this to save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls. Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions last 24 hours.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Memory key (e.g., "subject_property", "target_ticker", "user_preference") | |
| value | Yes | Value to store (any text — findings, addresses, preferences, notes) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains key traits: the tool performs a write operation ('Store'), specifies persistence behavior ('Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions last 24 hours'), and hints at session scope. It does not cover aspects like error conditions or rate limits, but provides substantial context beyond basic functionality.
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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage, and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and use cases, the second explains persistence rules. There is no wasted text, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a write operation with session-based persistence), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, and key behavioral traits. It lacks details on error handling or return values, but for a tool with 2 simple parameters and clear scope, it is largely complete and actionable for an agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('key' and 'value') fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain key constraints or value formatting). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting, and the description adds no extra parameter semantics.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Store a key-value pair') and resource ('in your session memory'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'recall' (likely for retrieval) and 'forget' (likely for deletion). It provides concrete examples of what to store ('intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls'), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated.
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?
The description offers clear context for when to use this tool ('save intermediate findings, user preferences, or context across tool calls'), which helps guide the agent. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'recall' for retrieval or 'forget' for deletion), missing explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
simplifyAInspect
Reduce a mathematical expression to its simplest form. Input algebraic notation (e.g., "2^2+2(2)"). Returns simplified result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expression | Yes | Mathematical expression to simplify (e.g., "2^2+2(2)", "x^2+2x+1") |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Supports standard algebraic notation,' which adds some context about input format, but lacks details on error handling, performance limits, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 front-loaded and concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and key feature. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks an output schema, and with no annotations, it does not fully compensate by explaining return values or behavioral traits. This results in a minimal viable description with clear gaps.
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, with the 'expression' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing an example ('2^2+2(2)'), but does not elaborate on syntax or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('simplify') and resource ('mathematical expression'), and provides an example transformation ('2^2+2(2)' → '8'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'derive', 'factor', and 'integrate' by focusing on simplification rather than calculus or factorization operations.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Simplify a mathematical expression') and mentions support for 'standard algebraic notation,' which helps identify appropriate inputs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when factorization or integration might be more suitable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!