Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-sympy

mcp-sympy

by daedalus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

sympy_replace

Replace a subexpression in a symbolic expression with a new one using the format 'old,new'.

Instructions

Replace in expression (format: "old,new").

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": {
      "expr": "<expr>",
      "old_new": "<old_new>"
    },
    "name": "sympy_replace"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
exprYes
old_newYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only specifies the input format without disclosing behavioral traits like replacement scope, side effects, or error conditions. The agent has insufficient information to anticipate tool behavior.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the essential purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundant information.

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 the presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a replacement tool among many siblings, more contextual completeness (e.g., on replacement behavior) would be beneficial.

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?

The description adds the format 'old,new' for the old_new parameter, which provides some semantic value beyond the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, more parameter explanation is needed.

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 the action ('Replace') and the resource ('expression'), providing a specific verb-object pair. However, it does not distinguish between similar sibling tools like sympy_xreplace or sympy_subs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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