SageMath MCP Server

Simplify Expression

simplify_expression

Idempotent

Simplify a mathematical expression to its simplest symbolic form. Uses SageMath to reduce complex equations into cleaner equivalent results.

Instructions

Simplify a mathematical expression

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	Expression to simplify

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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the name. It does not disclose side effects, limitations, or what happens with complex expressions. Since annotations exist, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add value, providing no insight beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is under-specified, bordering on a tautology of the tool name. It is not misleading, but it provides minimal information, so it earns a 3 for being appropriately concise but not adequately informative.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description need not explain return values or safety. However, the description fails to provide any context for selecting this tool among numerous siblings, nor does it clarify what 'simplify' means in the SageMath context. The minimal description leaves the agent without enough to confidently choose this tool over related operations.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters (expression and session) with descriptions, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not clarify expression format or session semantics beyond the schema.

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 states the verb 'simplify' and the resource 'mathematical expression', making the core purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like expand_expression or factor_expression, which also transform expressions. Since it names the specific operation but lacks differentiation, it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where simplification is preferred over expansion, factorization, or other operations. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and description, which is insufficient.

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