Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-parigp

mcp-parigp

by daedalus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

subst

Replace a variable in a polynomial with an expression to compute the resulting polynomial.

Instructions

Substitute a variable in a polynomial.

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": {
      "pol": "<pol>",
      "v": "<v>",
      "expr": "<expr>"
    },
    "name": "subst"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vYesVariable to replace.
polYesPolynomial.
exprYesExpression to substitute.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose behavior such as handling of missing variables, error conditions, or side effects, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.

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?

For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but lacks details on error cases, return format, or behavior with edge cases; it is minimally complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter, so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly defines the action ('Substitute a variable in a polynomial') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'eval_expression' which evaluates an expression rather than substituting.

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 usage context is provided; the description does not specify when to use substitution over alternatives like evaluation or other polynomial operations, leaving the agent without guidance on appropriate invocation.

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