Skip to main content
Glama
111-test-111

Math MCP Server

by 111-test-111

expression_evaluator

Evaluate mathematical expressions, substituting variable values, and perform simplification, expansion, or factorization.

Instructions

Brief description: Mathematical expression evaluation and symbolic computation tool.
Examples:
    expression_evaluator(expression='2*x + 3*y', variables={'x': 5, 'y': 7})
    expression_evaluator(expression='x**2 + 2*x + 1', mode='factor')

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
expressionYesMathematical expression to evaluate
variablesNoDictionary of variable values, e.g. {'x': 1, 'y': 2}
modeNoComputation mode. Supports: 'evaluate', 'simplify', 'expand', 'factor'evaluate
output_formatNoOutput format. Supports: 'decimal', 'fraction', 'scientific', 'latex'decimal
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as non-destructive nature, input constraints, or performance characteristics. The examples only hint at usage.

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 very short (one sentence plus two examples). It is efficient but lacks structure like separate sections for purpose, usage, examples. Still, it is not verbose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity and that no output schema exists, the description is adequate but could be improved by specifying return type or format. It does not address differentiation from many sibling math tools.

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?

The schema already describes all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds examples but no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool does 'Mathematical expression evaluation and symbolic computation'. The examples reinforce this. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like basic_arithmetic or calculus_engine, which share similar domains.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/111-test-111/math-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server