Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ti-nspire-mcp

ti-nspire-mcp

by reliasdomi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

create_lua_or_ndless_tns

Packages Lua scripts or Ndless native payloads into executable .tns files for TI-Nspire calculators, with optional output directory.

Instructions

Empaqueta un script de Lua (motor TI-Nspire Script App) o una aplicación nativa de Ndless (cabecera PRG\x00) en un archivo .tns ejecutable.

:param filename: Nombre del archivo .tns a generar. :param mode: 'lua' para scripts Lua o 'ndless' para aplicaciones nativas Ndless. :param code_or_payload: Código fuente Lua o payload para Ndless. :param output_directory: Carpeta de salida opcional.

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": {
      "filename": "<filename>"
    },
    "name": "create_lua_or_ndless_tns"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNolua
filenameYes
code_or_payloadNo
output_directoryNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the key output traits (executable .tns wrapper, Ndless payload must carry the PRG\x00 header), which is real context beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about overwriting an existing file, whether the Lua code is validated/compiled, or what permissions are needed for a mutating file-creation operation.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded in one sentence and the four :param: lines are compact with no wasted prose. The only minor inefficiency is that defaults (mode='lua', output_directory=null) are left to the schema rather than noted, but nothing is redundant.

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 all four parameters are described. For a mutating file-generation tool with zero annotation coverage, though, the description omits overwrite behavior, error conditions, and any hint about validation of the Lua/payload input, leaving an agent without key operational context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the docstring lines are the only parameter documentation and they cover all four parameters, including the meaningful enum values ('lua'/'ndless') that the schema itself lacks and the optionality of output_directory. It falls short of 5 because it doesn't explain what form the Ndless payload must take or that filename is the sole required parameter.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (empaqueta) and resource (script Lua / aplicación Ndless) and states the output artifact (.tns ejecutable), plus the distinguishing technical detail of the PRG\x00 header. It is clear what the tool builds, though it never names the closest siblings such as create_python_tns_document or convert_script_to_tns to reinforce the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied through the 'mode' parameter ('lua' vs 'ndless'), which tells the agent which input format the tool accepts but not when this tool should be chosen over convert_script_to_tns or the other create_*_tns_document tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are stated.

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