geogebra-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Save / restore a version

ggb_snapshot

Save the current GeoGebra figure under a name, restore a saved figure, or list saved names while the server runs to manage temporary figure states.

Instructions

Save the current figure under a name, restore a saved one, or list saved names. Snapshots live while the server runs.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "ggb_snapshot"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`action`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: snapshots are in-memory and vanish when the server stops. However, it does not state that 'restore' overwrites the current figure (a destructive outcome), what happens on restore of an unknown name, or whether saved snapshots can be re-saved.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words; the action list comes first and the lifetime caveat second. Slightly terse given the gaps it leaves, but structurally sound.

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 2-parameter mutation-capable tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the per-action parameter contract and restore semantics unstated. The lifetime note is helpful but the definition is only minimally adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it only partially does. It links 'name' to the save action, but never says that name is required for save/restore and irrelevant for list, nor does it define any naming constraints or collision behavior.

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 uses specific verbs (save, restore, list) against a clear resource (the current figure / saved snapshots), so an agent immediately knows this is the snapshot-management tool. It does not explicitly name or rule out any sibling (e.g. ggb_clear or ggb_undo), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 three actions imply the situations in which the tool is used, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as ggb_undo or ggb_clear for reverting state. Usage is inferable from the action enum alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server