Skip to main content
Glama

convert_script_to_tns

Convert an existing Python (.py) script to TI-Nspire .tns format so it can be used on TI-Nspire calculators.

Instructions

Convierte un archivo .py existente en tu computadora a formato .tns de TI-Nspire.

:param python_script_path: Ruta absoluta al archivo .py a convertir.

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": {
      "python_script_path": "<python_script_path>"
    },
    "name": "convert_script_to_tns"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
python_script_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: it does not say where the .tns file is written, whether an existing output is overwritten, whether the file is uploaded to a device, or what failures (bad path, unsupported imports) look like. Only the direction of the conversion is conveyed.

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?

One sentence stating the action followed by a single param line — front-loaded and free of padding. The Sphinx-style :param block is slightly redundant given the one-parameter schema, but it costs little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a one-parameter tool is inherently simple. However, as an unannotated file-producing operation it should at minimum indicate the output artifact or destination, which is missing.

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 for the single parameter. It does add meaning by specifying an absolute path to a .py file, which narrows the format and path style beyond the bare schema property name, but it stops short of examples or error conditions.

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 and resource: converting an existing .py file into TI-Nspire .tns format. This is clearly distinguishable from creation-oriented siblings such as create_python_tns_document or create_lua_or_ndless_tns, though the description never says so explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives for producing a .tns. The only implied condition is that the script already exists on the local machine, which is inferred from the wording rather than stated as a rule.

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