Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-parigp

mcp-parigp

by daedalus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

resultant

Compute the resultant of two polynomials to find common roots or determine if they share a factor.

Instructions

Compute the resultant of two polynomials.

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": {
      "pol1": "<pol1>",
      "pol2": "<pol2>"
    },
    "name": "resultant"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vNoVariable name.x
pol1YesFirst polynomial.
pol2YesSecond polynomial.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only computation but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention any behavioral traits such as performance considerations or special cases.

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?

One sentence, no fluff. It is efficiently written but could incorporate a mention of the variable parameter 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?

Given an output schema exists (though not provided), the description need not detail return values. However, for a mathematical operation like resultant, a brief definition or note about the variable would improve completeness. The current description is adequate for users familiar with the concept.

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% (each parameter has a description). The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, and it omits the variable parameter 'v', which is a key part of the computation. However, the schema itself is clear, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Compute the resultant of two polynomials' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gcd or factor, which compute different polynomial operations. However, it does not elaborate on the mathematical definition, which could benefit beginners.

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 like polroots or gcd. No prerequisites, limitations, or comparisons to sibling tools are provided.

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