lookup_sage_docRetrieves documentation links for a SageMath symbol and indicates whether the server can evaluate it.
Documentation links for a SageMath name, plus whether this server offers that name to evaluate_sage caller code
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | A SageMath name, e.g. 'EllipticCurve' or 'desolve' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the tool returns both documentation links and an availability flag, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error handling or whether missing symbols produce empty results.
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?
A single, compact sentence conveys the core function and the availability-check nuance without wasted words. The key purpose is front-loaded.
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 single parameter, fully specified schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete. The existence of an output schema means return-value details do not need to be in the description.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'symbol' parameter is well described with an example. The description confirms it is a SageMath name but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool returns 'Documentation links for a SageMath name' plus availability information for the evaluate_sage tool. This distinguishes it from the many computation-oriented sibling tools.
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 implies when to use the tool: when documentation or availability for a SageMath name is needed, especially in relation to evaluate_sage caller code. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.