get_variable
Retrieve the value of a stored variable for use in mathematical operations.
Instructions
Get the value of a variable
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Variable name |
Retrieve the value of a stored variable for use in mathematical operations.
Get the value of a variable
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Variable name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core operation and does not mention what happens if the variable doesn't exist, whether the return value is typed, or any potential side effects. This is a minimal read operation, but the description fails to add any context beyond the tool name.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the essential operation with zero waste. It is concise and well-structured for a tool of this simplicity.
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?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It clearly states the purpose, but does not cover what the return value looks like or error behavior, which would be helpful for a complete understanding.
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 schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the single 'name' parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('variable'), directly stating the operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_variable, list_variables, and clear_variables, which involve different actions.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_variables should be used for retrieving all variables, nor does it describe any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Desz01ate/math-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server