API Hub MCP — 337+ Tools

quadratic_solver

Solve any quadratic equation by providing coefficients a, b, and c. Returns the roots of ax² + bx + c = 0.

Instructions

Solve quadratic equation ax² + bx + c = 0.

Parameters:
    a — Coefficient of x².
    b — Coefficient of x.
    c — Constant term.

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": {
      "a": "<a>",
      "b": "<b>",
      "c": "<c>"
    },
    "name": "quadratic_solver"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`a`	Yes
`b`	Yes
`c`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.4.1Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only explains input mapping but says nothing about output, edge cases (e.g., negative discriminant, a=0), or error handling. The output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context beyond inputs.

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 with two short sentences. It presents the equation first, then lists parameters, which is a clear structure. Some redundancy (the equation line and parameter list) is acceptable; no unnecessary text.

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?

The tool has three required parameters and an output schema, but the description omits critical aspects: what the function returns (roots, discriminant, etc.), handling of non-real solutions, and constraints (a ≠ 0). The existing output schema reduces the burden, but the description still lacks sufficient context for an agent to use it confidently.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description compensates by defining each parameter (a, b, c) in the context of the quadratic equation, adding meaning beyond type 'number'. It clearly maps coefficients to their roles.

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 'Solve quadratic equation ax² + bx + c = 0', clearly identifying the verb (solve) and resource (quadratic equation). It is distinct from sibling tools, many of which are unrelated calculation tools.

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. It does not mention when not to use (e.g., for linear equations) or refer to related tools like 'evaluate_math' or 'slope_calc'. The context implies a specific quadratic solver but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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

Deploy Server