Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-sympy

mcp-sympy

by daedalus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

sympy_rational

Construct a rational number from a numerator and denominator string. Enables exact fraction arithmetic for symbolic computation.

Instructions

Create Rational.

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": {
      "num": "<num>",
      "den": "<den>"
    },
    "name": "sympy_rational"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numYes
denYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or output format. For a creation operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

At two words, the description is overly terse and omits essential details. True conciseness requires conveying meaning efficiently without sacrificing completeness.

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?

The description lacks information about what the tool returns, even though an output schema exists. It does not provide enough context for the agent to understand the tool's role among many similar siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema names two parameters (num, den) but provides no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not clarify their meaning or expected format, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 'Create Rational.' states the action (create) and the object (rational), but it is very brief and does not clarify what a Rational is in the SymPy context. It is slightly more than a tautology but lacks specificity compared to sibling tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sympy_rationalize or other numeric tools. The agent receives no context about appropriate usage scenarios.

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