Skip to main content
Glama

symbolic_abstract

Convert concrete expressions into abstract variables for mathematical reasoning, simplification, or proof generation by mapping tokens to symbols and creating structured prompts.

Instructions

Convert a concrete expression into abstract variables for reasoning.

    Args:
        expression: The raw text or equation to abstract.
        mapping_hint: Optional guidance for token-to-symbol mapping.
        goal: Optional downstream task (e.g., simplify, prove, generalize).

    Returns:
        Structured prompt that maps tokens to symbols, restates the problem
        abstractly, and provides a reversible mapping table.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
expressionYes
mapping_hintNo
goalNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function for the 'symbolic_abstract' tool, decorated with @mcp.tool(). It validates input using SymbolicAbstractInput schema and generates a structured JSON-like prompt template for abstracting expressions into symbols.
        @mcp.tool()
        def symbolic_abstract(
            expression: str,
            mapping_hint: Optional[str] = None,
            goal: Optional[str] = None,
        ) -> str:
            """Convert a concrete expression into abstract variables for reasoning.
    
            Args:
                expression: The raw text or equation to abstract.
                mapping_hint: Optional guidance for token-to-symbol mapping.
                goal: Optional downstream task (e.g., simplify, prove, generalize).
    
            Returns:
                Structured prompt that maps tokens to symbols, restates the problem
                abstractly, and provides a reversible mapping table.
            """
            try:
                model = SymbolicAbstractInput(
                    expression=expression, mapping_hint=mapping_hint, goal=goal
                )
            except ValidationError as e:
                return f"Input Validation Error: {e}"
    
            normalized_hint = model.mapping_hint or "<none>"
            normalized_goal = model.goal or "<general>"
    
            template = """
    /symbolic.abstract{{
        intent="Abstract concrete tokens into symbolic variables to enable general reasoning",
        input={{
            expression="{expression}",
            mapping_hint="{mapping_hint}",
            goal="{goal}"
        }},
        process=[
            /tokenize{{action="Identify meaningful tokens/entities in the expression"}},
            /assign_symbols{{action="Map tokens to abstract symbols with reversible table"}},
            /restatement{{action="Restate the problem using only symbols"}},
            /constraints{{action="Preserve constraints or relationships between symbols"}}
        ],
        output={{
            abstract_form="Symbolic restatement of the expression/problem",
            symbol_table="Mapping of symbols -> original tokens",
            invariants="Constraints/relations maintained in abstraction",
            next_steps="How to use the abstraction for the stated goal"
        }}
    }}
    """
            return template.format(
                expression=model.expression,
                mapping_hint=normalized_hint,
                goal=normalized_goal,
            )
  • Pydantic input model (schema) used for validating parameters of the symbolic_abstract tool: required 'expression' and optional 'mapping_hint', 'goal'.
    class SymbolicAbstractInput(BaseModel):
        expression: str = Field(
            ..., min_length=1, description="The raw text or equation to abstract."
        )
        mapping_hint: Optional[str] = Field(
            None, description="Optional guidance for token-to-symbol mapping."
        )
        goal: Optional[str] = Field(None, description="Optional downstream task.")
  • Invocation of register_thinking_models on the FastMCP server instance, which defines and registers the symbolic_abstract tool (along with other cognitive tools).
    register_thinking_models(mcp)
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function and output but doesn't cover critical behavioral traits such as error handling, performance characteristics, or any constraints like rate limits or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves in practice.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter details and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the use of bullet-like formatting in the Args and Returns sections enhances readability. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it adequately explains the input parameters. However, with no annotations and moderate complexity, it could benefit from more behavioral context or usage scenarios. The description covers the basics but leaves some gaps in full contextual understanding.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'expression' as the raw input, 'mapping_hint' for guidance, and 'goal' for downstream tasks, with examples like 'simplify, prove, generalize'. This provides clear context beyond the basic schema, though it could be more detailed on parameter interactions or constraints.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: converting concrete expressions into abstract variables for reasoning. It specifies the verb 'convert' and resource 'concrete expression', making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_task_complexity' or 'verify_logic', which might also involve reasoning tasks, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. It mentions a 'downstream task' in the goal parameter but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions for using symbolic abstraction over other tools. This lack of explicit usage instructions limits its effectiveness for an AI agent.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/4rgon4ut/sutra'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server