SageMath MCP Server

calculate_expression

Idempotent

Evaluate SageMath expressions and return numeric or string results, with optional isolated workspace sessions for independent variables.

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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations supply the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world) but flag readOnlyHint=false, implying possible state effects, which the description never addresses. It also says nothing about session/workspace side effects, errors, or timeouts, so it adds little beyond the annotations.

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 wasted words, action and return described together. It is arguably too terse for the tool's ambiguity, but as pure conciseness it is efficient.

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?

An output schema and detailed param schema exist, but the description still leaves a critical gap: why use this versus evaluate_sage, and whether evaluation mutates workspace state given readOnlyHint=false. For a tool in a crowded sibling cluster, that omission is significant.

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% and the session parameter is richly documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb (Evaluate) and resource (SageMath expression) plus what it returns (numeric/string forms). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling evaluate_sage or evaluate_sage_streaming, which appear to overlap heavily.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to pick this over evaluate_sage, evaluate_sage_streaming, or verify_claim. The agent must infer the distinction from names alone.

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