mcp-calculator

by mitvvce-mdot

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool performs a unique mathematical operation (add, subtract, multiply, divide, power, square root) with no overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names are single-word or underscore-separated (e.g., square_root), using consistent imperative verbs.
Tool Count5/5
Six tools cover essential arithmetic plus power and square root, appropriate for a basic calculator.
Completeness4/5
Covers addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, exponentiation, and square root. Missing common operations like modulus or floor division, but reasonable for a simple calculator.
Average 3.6/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention edge cases (e.g., negative exponents, zero base, overflow), performance, or any side effects. The description is too minimal to inform safe 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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the essential information. However, it is arguably too brief given the need for more behavioral and parameter context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention return value or behavior for edge cases. For a simple tool, it lacks completeness regarding what the agent can expect from invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to add meaning beyond the schema. The description only names 'base' and 'exponent' without providing constraints, types, or expected ranges, which does little to clarify parameter usage.
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 'Raise base to the power of exponent' clearly states the mathematical operation (exponentiation) with specific verb and resources (base, exponent). It distinguishes from sibling tools (divide, square_root, etc.) which perform other operations.
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?
The description implies usage for exponentiation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like square_root (which is a special case). No exclusions or context mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 only says 'Add two numbers together,' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as result type, precision, overflow handling, or error behavior. For a simple arithmetic tool, this may be passable, but it lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, coherent sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Front-loading is not an issue due to its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 numbers, arithmetic operation), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention the return value (output schema exists but is not described), nor does it address edge cases, making it insufficient for complex usage.
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 description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters have no descriptions. The description adds no semantic context beyond the schema (that a and b are numbers). It does not explain what the numbers represent, range constraints, or units, leaving the agent with minimal guidance.
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 action (add) and the object (two numbers), and it distinguishes from sibling arithmetic tools like subtract, multiply, etc. It is specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage when addition is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or restrictions. The sibling tools differentiate by operation, but the description does not elaborate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Multiply two numbers' accurately describes the core operation, but does not disclose edge cases, error handling, or return behavior. However, for a trivial arithmetic operation, this minimal description is acceptable and not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, 'Multiply two numbers,' with no filler words or redundant information. It is effectively front-loaded and maximally concise.
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 simple two-number multiply tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It lacks details on return values or edge cases, but these are not critical given the tool's triviality and the presence of an output schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter details. It confirms that both parameters are numbers and are to be multiplied, but does not explain individual roles. Since multiplication is commutative, the symmetry reduces the need for further clarification.
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 the specific verb 'Multiply' and the resource 'two numbers', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add, subtract, divide, power, square_root, and percentage. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling arithmetic operations. The description does not mention any alternatives, exclusions, or context for when multiplication is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description explicitly warns about an error condition ('Raises an error if b is zero'), which is a critical behavioral trait. It does not mention other behaviors like return type, but the presence of an output schema mitigates this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for the operation and one for the error. It is front-loaded with the key verb 'Divide' and contains no unnecessary words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could mention the return type, but that is already specified in the output schema. The error disclosure adds necessary completeness.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning to parameters, but it only repeats the parameter names ('a' and 'b') without defining them as dividend and divisor. The meaning is mostly inferred from context.
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 action: 'Divide a by b.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the operation is distinct from siblings (add, multiply, subtract, power, square_root).
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 vs alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where division is preferred over other operations or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly specifies the order of operands (b from a) but does not disclose additional traits such as return type, edge cases, or side effects. For a simple arithmetic function, this is minimal but adequate; however, it lacks richness beyond the core operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler words. It communicates the essential operation clearly and efficiently, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool, the explicit input schema, and the presence of an output schema (as indicated by context), the description provides sufficient context. It does not need to explain return values or complex behaviors, making it complete for its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the input schema has no descriptions for a and b, the description adds critical semantic meaning by clarifying the subtractive relationship: a is the minuend and b is the subtrahend. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and helps the agent understand how to correctly pass arguments.
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's action as 'Subtract b from a', using a specific verb and resource. This unambiguously identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add, multiply, and divide.
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?
The description implies use for subtraction but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or competing tools, leaving the usage context to be inferred from the operation name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical behavior of raising an error for negative inputs. Given the tool's simplicity, this covers the most important behavioral aspect, though it could mention the return type or precision.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes a critical constraint efficiently.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the purpose and a key error case. It is nearly complete, though it could briefly note that the result is a number.
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 parameter 'n' is a number with no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds context by mentioning it is a number and that negative values cause errors, but does not elaborate further. For a single numeric parameter, this is minimally adequate.
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 explicitly states the tool returns the square root of a number, using a specific verb ('return') and resource ('square root'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'power', 'divide', etc., as it uniquely computes the square root.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates when to use the tool (for square root computation) and when not (negative numbers cause an error). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives among siblings, the sibling tools have distinct purposes, making the usage context sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-calculator MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-calculator MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mitvvce-mdot/mcp-calculator/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mitvvce-mdot/mcp-calculator)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-calculator MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mitvvce-mdot/mcp-calculator/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mitvvce-mdot/mcp-calculator)