Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-parigp

mcp-parigp

by daedalus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

matrank

Compute the rank of a matrix to assess linear independence and solution space.

Instructions

Compute the rank of a matrix.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "m": "<m>"
    },
    "name": "matrank"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mYesMatrix.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only states the basic operation without mentioning side effects, return type, or any constraints (e.g., matrix must be square). The description is insufficient for behavioral transparency.

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 sentence is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is slightly under-specified; a bit more context could improve usability without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and the description adequately states its purpose. However, it does not mention the output (a numeric rank) or the expected input format beyond 'Matrix'. With an existing output schema, completeness is marginal.

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% (parameter 'm' described as 'Matrix'), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Compute' and resource 'rank of a matrix', making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling matrix tools like matdet (determinant) by focusing on rank.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or contrast with sibling tools such as matdet, mateigen, etc.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools