Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
INFATON MCP35

INFATON MCP35

Official
by infaton
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

evaluate_expression

Evaluate 1C expressions to compute values and verify logic. Get immediate results for simple calculations and checks.

Instructions

Вычислить выражение на языке 1С и вернуть результат. Для простых вычислений и проверок.

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": {
      "expression": "<expression>"
    },
    "name": "evaluate_expression"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
expressionYesВыражение на языке 1С для вычисления, например: Формат(ТекущаяДата(), "ДФ=dd.MM.yyyy")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose whether evaluating expressions can have side effects or modify state, which is a significant gap given the tool executes arbitrary 1C code.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no unnecessary words. It is efficient but could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite being simple, the description lacks details on return format, error behavior, and limitations. Given no output schema, this information would be helpful for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with a description and example for 'expression'. The tool description adds no further semantic value beyond stating it is for simple tasks, which does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool evaluates 1C expressions and returns results. It specifies 'for simple calculations and checks', which helps distinguish from siblings like execute_code or execute_query, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 'for simple calculations and checks' provides implied guidance but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use. Alternatives are not mentioned, although sibling tool names are provided externally.

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