SageMath MCP Server

Calculate Expression

calculate_expression

Idempotent

Evaluate a SageMath expression to obtain numeric or string results, solving symbolic, algebraic, or calculus queries.

Instructions

Evaluate a SageMath expression and return numeric/string forms

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`session`	No	Workspace to use, as a name or a portable handle. Workspaces have independent variables. A name is scoped to this MCP session; a handle returned by start_sage_session (workspace_token) reaches the same workspace across reconnects and is a bearer credential -- keep it secret. Omit for 'default'.	default
`expression`	Yes	SageMath expression to evaluate

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0Sep 12, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / session / description

Previous value: -"Named workspace to use. Workspaces have independent variables; omit for 'default'."New value: +"Workspace to use, as a name or a portable handle. Workspaces have independent variables. A name is scoped to this MCP session; a handle returned by start_sage_session (workspace_token) reaches the same workspace across reconnects and is a bearer credential -- keep it secret. Omit for 'default'."

Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0Aug 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / session

Added value: +{
+  "default": "default",
+  "description": "Named workspace to use. Workspaces have independent variables; omit for 'default'.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv0.3.1Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already supply idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are 'numeric/string forms', but it does not clarify possible session-side effects, especially since readOnlyHint=false. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 a single focused sentence that leads with the verb and object and then states the expected result. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The schema documents all parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness, so an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is the lack of sibling differentiation, but for a simple evaluation tool the description is otherwise adequate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters, including the session workspace semantics and bearer-token warning. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 names the verb ('Evaluate') and the resource ('a SageMath expression') and states the output shape ('numeric/string forms'). It does not explicitly differentiate the tool from overlapping siblings such as evaluate_sage or evaluate_sage_streaming, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given several closely related siblings (evaluate_sage, evaluate_sage_streaming, simplify_expression, solve_equation), the absence of selection criteria leaves the agent to guess which tool fits a given request.

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