Skip to main content
Glama

Graph Paper

Evaluate math

evaluate_math
Read-only

Needs sign-in: Evaluate a math expression with the Compute Engine. With documentId, the expression sees the definitions of that document, as Graph Paper's own assistant does; without it, an empty scope. Pure: nothing is changed.

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": {
      "latex": "<latex>"
    },
    "name": "evaluate_math"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latexYesThe expression to evaluate, in LaTeX.
documentIdNoThe id of a document (from list_documents or search_documents). With it, the expression sees that document's definitions; without it, an empty scope.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and closed-world, and the description reinforces this with 'Pure: nothing is changed' while adding the sign-in requirement, which is real context not present in the structured fields. It stops short of describing error behavior or what a failed evaluation looks like.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the scope condition and purity guarantee are both stated efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description should say something about the return value (result value, error form, precision) but is silent. Authentication and purity are covered, leaving the response shape as the main gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's documentId explanation essentially restates the schema text. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (evaluate a math expression on the Compute Engine) and explains the document-scoped vs empty-scope behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling evaluate_steps, so an agent must infer the expression-vs-steps distinction.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: pass documentId to evaluate against that document's definitions, omit it for an empty scope. It offers no explicit when-to-use versus evaluate_steps or explain, so routing between siblings is left implicit.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources