Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-sympy

mcp-sympy

by daedalus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

sympy_Implies

Evaluate a logical implication by providing an antecedent (lhs) and consequent (rhs). Returns whether the implication is true in a symbolic mathematical context.

Instructions

Logical implication.

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": {
      "lhs": "<lhs>",
      "rhs": "<rhs>"
    },
    "name": "sympy_Implies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lhsYesAntecedent
rhsYesConsequent

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not state whether the tool returns an expression, evaluates to a boolean, or has any side effects. It fails to disclose essential behavioral traits for a logical operator.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is only two words, which is overly terse and under-informative. While concise, it lacks structure and fails to provide helpful context, making it seem incomplete rather than efficiently dense.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has two string parameters and an output schema, the description lacks essential context such as valid input formats (e.g., sympy expressions or Boolean strings), expected output, and any constraints. It is far from 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter described as 'Antecedent' and 'Consequent'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3 without extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Logical implication.' indicates the tool relates to logical implication but does not specify whether it creates, evaluates, or manipulates an implication expression. It fails to distinguish from sibling logical operators like sympy_And, sympy_Or, or sympy_Not, lacking a clear verb and resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 such as sympy_And, sympy_Or, or sympy_Not. There are no examples of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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