Skip to main content
Glama

Schrodingers Boolean

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Schrodingers Boolean Evaluate

schrodingers_boolean_evaluate
Read-onlyIdempotent

Ask a yes/no question and get a quantum superposition answer (both true and false simultaneously). Supports cat mode for absurdist responses. Returns the answer state and wave function interpretation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
catNoInclude the cat's status in the response
reopenNoAttempt to reopen a collapsed wave function (will fail)
observeNoCollapse the wave function to get a definitive answer
questionYesYour question for the quantum boolean
interpretNoInclude a philosophical interpretation

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answerYesThe quantum superposition answer (true and false simultaneously)
questionNoThe question that was submitted
collapsedNoWhether the wave function has been collapsed
cat_statusNoThe status of the cat (alive/dead/both)
wave_functionNoThe quantum wave function state representation
interpretationNoPhilosophical interpretation of the answer

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds context about the quantum superposition response and cat mode, and the 'reopen' parameter description warns it will fail, which is a behavioral hint beyond annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that cover the core purpose, special modes, and return content. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description is adequately complete. It explains the core functionality and special features. It could be more detailed about when to use 'observe' or 'interpret' parameters, but these are covered in the 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the description does not need to add much. It mentions 'cat mode' but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or semantics 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.

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 function: ask a yes/no question and receive a quantum superposition answer. It also highlights special features (cat mode, wave function interpretation). The tool's unique whimsical nature distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are more conventional research and prediction tools.

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 yes/no questions, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or prerequisites, though the sibling list lacks similar tools, reducing the need for differentiation.

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

All Schrodingers Boolean toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, especially within the Polymarket and data query groups. However, the three ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the overlap between deep_research and ask_pipeworx for broader questions could cause minor confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow some consistent prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, scan_, recent_) but overall mix verb_noun, noun phrases, and standalone verbs (forget, recall, remember). This inconsistency reduces predictability, though the patterns are still readable.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is high but justifiable given the server's dual role as a Pipeworx data gateway and Polymarket analysis suite. Each tool serves a distinct function in the workflow, but the count borders on heavy and could be streamlined.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle for the server's domain: discovery, querying, grounded answers, entity resolution, company profiles, fact-checking, prediction market analysis, memory, and monitoring. Minor gaps exist (no account management or direct data modification), but these are out of scope for a read-only data interface.

Resources