Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mathematica-skill

mathematica-skill

by 1837620622
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

mathematica_lint

Statically checks Wolfram Language syntax and flags high-risk calls so you can catch code issues before execution.

Instructions

静态检查 Wolfram Language 语法与高风险调用。

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_lint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_pathYes
allow_externalNo

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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the check is static (non-executing) and targets risky calls. Beyond that it says nothing about what is reported, whether findings block a pipeline, or what allow_external changes — a notable gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. It is arguably too terse for the information gaps it leaves, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 two undocumented parameters, the description is not complete enough: an agent cannot tell what task_path should point at, what allow_external enables, or what a lint result looks like. Given the tool's low complexity, one or two more sentences would have closed the gap.

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 and does not: neither task_path (a path to what — a file, a task directory?) nor allow_external is explained. allow_external is especially opaque, since its effect on lint behavior (external file or symbol resolution) is entirely unstated.

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 gives a specific verb (static check) and a specific resource (Wolfram Language syntax plus high-risk calls), so an agent knows this analyzes code without executing it. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the overlapping siblings mathematica_verify and mathematica_doctor, which likely cover adjacent ground.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool rather than mathematica_verify, mathematica_doctor, or mathematica_run. The word '静态' hints that it belongs before execution, but the agent must infer that, and no exclusions or preconditions 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