Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mathematica-skill

mathematica-skill

by 1837620622
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

mathematica_build

Builds native .nb and .wl files from a task path; set draft=true to produce drafts without requiring Mathematica.

Instructions

生成原生 .nb 和 .wl；draft=true 时不要求 Mathematica。

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": {
      "task_path": "<task_path>"
    },
    "name": "mathematica_build"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
draftNo
out_dirNo
timeoutNo
task_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that draft mode avoids a Mathematica dependency, but it does not say whether files are overwritten, what outputs are produced, what task_path expects, or how timeout/out_dir affect behavior.

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 very short and front-loaded: artifact types first, then the key draft exception. It avoids waste, though the extreme terseness leaves necessary context unstated.

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?

For a four-parameter build tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It should explain inputs, output artifacts, and side effects beyond the draft-mode note.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only partially explains draft=true and does not clarify task_path, out_dir, or timeout, leaving three of four parameters undocumented.

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?

The description states a specific action and concrete artifacts: generate native .nb and .wl files. This is clearer than a tautology and gives the agent the resource type, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from siblings such as mathematica_export or mathematica_run.

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?

The only guidance is that draft=true does not require Mathematica. There is no explanation of when to choose this tool instead of mathematica_run, mathematica_export, or other siblings, nor are there exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools