Evaluate one or more headless CAS expressions server-side (MCP-only numeric mode). Unsupported expressions return a GUI handoff link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| strict | No | If true, reject unknown fields and malformed expressions instead of dropping them | |
| expression | No | Single CAS expression to evaluate | |
| expressions | No | Optional ordered list of CAS expressions to evaluate in one isolated context (supports assignments across the batch) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It usefully states that unsupported expressions return a GUI handoff link and that it is headless/server-side. However, it does not mention potential side effects on session state (given the session-oriented sibling tools) or any error/edge-case behavior beyond the handoff link.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, then adds a key behavioral note. There is no redundancy or filler; every part contributes to understanding the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with good parameter schema coverage, but the description lacks enough context to fully understand its role among overlapping siblings. It reveals the handoff link behavior but does not explain return format, prerequisites, or how 'numeric mode' impacts usage. Without an output schema, more explanation would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the notion of 'one or more' but does not provide additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema already offers, so it neither substantially enhances nor detracts.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool evaluates headless CAS expressions server-side, specifying the verb ('evaluate') and resource ('one or more headless CAS expressions'). It includes scope ('MCP-only numeric mode'), but does not explicitly distinguish from the similarly named sibling tool 'calculate_cas_headless', so it misses full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate' or 'calculate_cas_headless'. The description mentions 'MCP-only numeric mode' but does not explain why an agent would choose this over other calculation tools or when to avoid it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
calculate_cas and calculate_cas_headless are explicitly aliases, creating two tools for the same purpose. Also, calculate and generate_prefilled_url both produce prefilled URLs, so their boundaries are not fully distinct.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (calculate, create_session, get_session_state, list_calculators). The main deviation is calculate_cas_headless, which still fits the pattern but is an awkward alias name.
The 10-tool count is reasonable for a calculator service with session management. However, the alias tool is redundant and could be removed without losing functionality.
The tool set covers listing calculators, getting schemas, running calculations (standard and CAS), managing sessions, and generating URLs. Minor gaps like a dedicated way to delete sessions are addressed by close_session, so coverage is adequate.