Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mathematica-skill

mathematica-skill

by 1837620622
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

mathematica_evaluate_notebook

Executes an existing Wolfram .nb notebook through the desktop front end and returns the evaluation results.

Instructions

用桌面前端执行已有 .nb 并返回结果。

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": {
      "notebook_path": "<notebook_path>"
    },
    "name": "mathematica_evaluate_notebook"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutNo
out_pathNo
notebook_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '桌面前端' hints at a required GUI, but it doesn't disclose side effects on the notebook file, what happens on timeout, whether out_path writes/overwrites a file, or how failures surface.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence with no padding, and the key constraint (desktop frontend) is front-loaded. But the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should do much more. It covers only the basic action and the desktop-frontend requirement, leaving timeout, output path, and return behavior entirely undocumented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters. The description says nothing about notebook_path, the 240s timeout default, or what out_path is for, so it adds no meaning beyond bare parameter names.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a concrete verb ('执行') and resource ('已有 .nb'), plus a distinguishing qualifier ('桌面前端'), so the core action is understandable. However, it never differentiates this from siblings like mathematica_run or mathematica_compute, leaving the agent unsure which execution tool is the right one.

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?

It implies usage for pre-existing notebook files but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternatives among the many execution-related siblings. No prerequisites (e.g., a running desktop frontend, notebook validity) are stated.

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