Generates a runnable example task JSON to demonstrate and test Mathematica skill workflows.
返回一个可运行的示例任务 JSON。
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "mathematica_example"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral fact: the returned payload is a runnable example task JSON. It says nothing about whether the example is static or parameterized, what fields the task JSON contains, or how large it is, which leaves real gaps for a tool whose entire output is opaque.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. For a zero-parameter tool, this is exactly the right size.
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 (no params, no nested objects), but with no output schema the description is the only place the return value could be characterized, and it only says 'runnable example task JSON'. A brief note on the task JSON's shape or intended follow-up (e.g. feed into mathematica_plan/run) would make it complete.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource: it returns a runnable example task JSON. No sibling tool (doctor/plan/lint/build/run/compute/notebook/export/verify) does this, so the purpose is unambiguous. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from the pipeline siblings, which would have earned a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs a template task to start from. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.