Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-sympy

mcp-sympy

by daedalus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

sympy_nsolve

Numerically solve equations by providing the equation, comma-separated variables, and initial guesses.

Instructions

Numerically solve an equation.

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": {
      "equation": "<equation>",
      "variables": "<variables>",
      "guesses": "<guesses>"
    },
    "name": "sympy_nsolve"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
equationYesString equation
variablesYesComma-separated variables
guessesYesComma-separated initial guesses

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Description does not disclose that the tool uses numerical methods, requires initial guesses, or may converge to different roots. It fails to mention any limitations or return behavior. Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden but is insufficient.

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, which is concise but too brief given the tool's complexity. It could include additional context without becoming verbose, so it is adequate but not exemplary.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., numerical solution, list, or error). The tool requires initial guesses and handles potentially complex equations, but the description omits this context, leaving significant gaps.

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 descriptions already cover the three parameters (equation, variables, guesses) with basic strings. The tool description adds no further meaning about parameter format or syntax, so it meets baseline but does not improve upon 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?

Description clearly states 'Numerically solve an equation', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sympy_solve (symbolic) and sympy_solveset (solve set). The name 'nsolve' further reinforces numeric solving.

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 numeric solving versus symbolic alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of required initial guesses or potential convergence issues. The description lacks any usage context.

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