Enhanced GeoGebra MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create GeoGebra Session

ggb_create_session

Creates a headless GeoGebra applet session backed by local web assets, enabling command execution and state management without a GUI.

Instructions

Create a headless GeoGebra applet session backed by the local bundled GeoGebra Web assets.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ggb_create_session"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`xml`	No
`width`	No
`base64`	No
`height`	No
`appName`	No	graphing
`showMenuBar`	No
`showToolBar`	No
`showAlgebraInput`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It reveals that the session is headless and uses local assets, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose lifecycle implications (e.g., the need to close the session, resource consumption, or behavior when created multiple times).

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. However, for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, 'appropriately sized' could be argued to be longer; it's not verbose but does not fully earn its keep by omitting critical context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% schema description coverage. The description is far too terse to give the agent enough context to correctly invoke the tool. It doesn't explain return values, session semantics, or parameter meanings, making it inadequate for real use.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. With 8 parameters including XML, dimensions, and app name, the agent has no guidance on what values to provide or how they affect the session.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('headless GeoGebra applet session'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that evaluate commands or query state. It also specifies the backing technology, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description doesn't mention that this is a prerequisite for other operations or when to avoid it. Sibling tools exist for evaluation and state management, but no comparison is given.

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

Deploy Server