Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
step-by-step-math

step-by-step-math

by gonzavh17
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_board

Read-onlyIdempotent

Loads a whiteboard's saved steps for the whiteboard UI so users can review step-by-step math work.

Instructions

Internal: loads a whiteboard's steps for the whiteboard UI. Do not call it.

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": {
      "board_id": "<board_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_board"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
board_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing that this is a UI-internal call path rather than a general API surface. It does not describe the return shape, but an output schema exists to carry that.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant information ('Internal', 'Do not call it') is front-loaded and unmissable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the crucial question of whether an agent should invoke it at all. The only gap is that it never characterizes what a 'step' is, which the output schema presumably addresses.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description would need to explain board_id, and it says nothing about it. The single required parameter is fairly self-evident by name, which keeps this from being a 1, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: it loads a whiteboard's steps for the whiteboard UI. The 'Internal' prefix and the warning make its role unmistakable, and there is no plausible confusion with the math-oriented siblings (integrate, differentiate, verify_antiderivative).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states the usage condition explicitly ('Internal'), identifies the consumer (the whiteboard UI), and issues a direct exclusion ('Do not call it'). An agent reading this knows immediately that this tool is not for its use, which is exactly the guidance this dimension asks for.

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