SageMath MCP Server

check_sage_health

Idempotent

Verify SageMath evaluation readiness by starting or reusing a workspace worker, running 1+1, and reporting success and latency; safe to call for health checks before computations.

Instructions

Probe whether SageMath evaluation works right now: starts (or reuses) the workspace's worker, evaluates 1+1, and reports readiness and latency. Reports failure in the result instead of erroring, so it is always safe to call

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

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.7.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the worker start/reuse side effect (which explains why readOnlyHint=false despite being a probe) and the notable behavior that failures are returned in the result rather than raised. Does not mention auth or rate-limit characteristics, but adds meaningful context the annotations do not carry.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action sequence and closes with the key safety guarantee. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details need not be explained. Description covers behavior, side effects, and failure semantics adequately; only minor gaps such as what readiness/latency fields mean are absent.

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 single 'session' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the workspace concept without adding syntax or handle semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (probe) plus the exact action sequence (starts/reuses worker, evaluates 1+1, reports readiness and latency). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like evaluate_sage or start_sage_session.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'always safe to call' and 'works right now' imply preflight/diagnostic usage, but no sibling alternative is named and no explicit when-not condition is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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