Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Math MCP Server

Math MCP Server

by YasogaN
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

factor

Factor a polynomial expression or integer into its irreducible components using Algebrite.

Instructions

Factors a polynomial expression using Algebrite. Returns the factored form. Examples: 'x^2 - 4' → '(x+2)(x-2)', 'x^3 - 6x^2 + 11*x - 6', '12' → prime factorization

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "expression": "<expression>"
    },
    "name": "factor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
expressionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the use of Algebrite, returns factored form, and gives behavioral insight via examples (including prime factorization for constants). It doesn't mention error handling for invalid inputs, but overall is transparent.

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 concise: two sentences plus a list of examples. The purpose is front-loaded, though examples could be integrated more seamlessly.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description explains functionality and provides examples. It is fairly complete but missing error cases or constraints on input format.

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 0% and the description only provides examples as parameter hints. It does not formally describe what the expression parameter should contain (e.g., 'a valid polynomial string') beyond examples.

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 clearly states the tool factors polynomial expressions and provides concrete examples distinguishing it from siblings like simplify and expand. The verb 'factors' and resource 'polynomial expression' are specific.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied through examples and sibling names, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. For instance, it doesn't differentiate from simplify for factoring tasks.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools