Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
geogebra-mcp

geogebra-mcp

by haison8x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Export the figure

ggb_export

Save a GeoGebra figure to a local file as .ggb for reopening in GeoGebra or .png for an image by providing the destination path.

Instructions

Save the figure to a local file: "ggb" (GeoGebra file, can be opened again in GeoGebra) or "png" (image).

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": {
      "format": "<format>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "ggb_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesDestination file path on this computer
formatYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond format meaning. It does not say whether an existing file is overwritten, whether the directory must exist, what happens on failure, or what the call returns — all material for a tool that writes to disk.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action comes first and the format details follow as needed.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema export tool this is minimally adequate — format semantics are covered — but overwrite/error behavior and confirmation of success are left unspecified, which matters for a file-writing operation with no annotations to lean on.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%: 'path' is documented in the schema but 'format' is a bare enum. The description fills exactly that gap by explaining what 'ggb' and 'png' mean and that a .ggb file can be reopened in GeoGebra, which is genuinely useful beyond the structured data.

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?

States a specific verb (save/export) and resource (the figure) plus the two supported output formats. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names or distinguishes itself from the sibling ggb_screenshot, which also produces an image.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'Save the figure to a local file' implies when to reach for it (persisting output to disk), and the parentheticals hint at format selection. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to ggb_screenshot, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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