mathematica-skill

by 1837620622

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mathematica_export

Export real Wolfram graphics and computed results to PNG, PDF, or CSV files by running a Wolfram Language script and saving outputs to a chosen directory.

Instructions

从真实 Wolfram 图形导出 PNG/PDF/CSV。

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>",
      "code_path": "<code_path>",
      "out_dir": "<out_dir>"
    },
    "name": "mathematica_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`out_dir`	Yes
`timeout`	No
`code_path`	Yes
`task_path`	Yes
`result_path`	No	export.json

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

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 but only discloses output formats. It does not state whether the export writes files, overwrites existing outputs, executes code from code_path, requires a valid task_path, or how errors/timeouts are handled. This is a significant gap for a tool that appears to write to out_dir.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too terse for a 5-parameter tool and omits essential structure that would make the definition actionable.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It names formats but says nothing about required inputs, output destination behavior, execution model, or return value.

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?

The schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. task_path, code_path, out_dir, timeout, and result_path are all undocumented, so an agent cannot infer their meanings from the description.

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 verb and resource: exporting PNG/PDF/CSV from real Wolfram graphics. This clearly distinguishes the tool's output-oriented role from evaluation or notebook-editing siblings. However, it does not mention the task/code inputs that drive the export, leaving the purpose somewhat narrow.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mathematica_compute or mathematica_run. It implies usage only through the word 'export', with no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server