Enhanced GeoGebra MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Export GeoGebra Image

ggb_export_image

Export the active GeoGebra view as PNG, SVG, or full-applet screenshot. Control DPI, scale, transparency, and inline limit for tailored image exports.

Instructions

Export the active view as PNG, SVG, or full-applet screenshot.

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": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>"
    },
    "name": "ggb_export_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`dpi`	No
`scale`	No
`format`	No	png
`sessionId`	Yes
`inlineLimit`	No
`transparent`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, how the output is returned, or whether permissions are required. The mention of 'active view' is contextual but insufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and output formats. It is concise and to the point, though it omits parameter details; however, conciseness is about efficiency, and it achieves that for its scope.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain return values, parameter behavior, or any side effects. The one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It mentions formats (png, svg, screenshot) but fails to explain dpi, scale, transparent, inlineLimit, or sessionId. The description adds almost no parameter meaning beyond the schema itself.

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 ('Export'), the resource ('the active view'), and the output formats ('PNG, SVG, or full-applet screenshot'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which perform exporting, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., an active session), or scenarios to avoid. Its uniqueness among siblings implies it is the export tool, but that is not explicit.

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

Deploy Server