Enhanced GeoGebra MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Set GeoGebra State

ggb_set_state

Load or replace a GeoGebra construction state using XML, base64 .ggb data, or fileJSON. Restore previous sessions or apply saved configurations instantly.

Instructions

Replace or load construction state from XML, base64 .ggb data, or fileJSON.

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>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "ggb_set_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`format`	No	xml
`content`	Yes
`sessionId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Replace' implying overwriting, but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (like valid sessionId), or error behavior. Minimal extra context beyond the action and formats; lacks details about state replacement impact.

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 efficient sentence without unnecessary words. It communicates the core action and formats quickly, though it is somewhat terse.

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?

For a state-mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to address prerequisites (e.g., session existence), overwrite behavior, return values, or failure modes. The tool is more complex than a simple read operation, yet the description does not provide enough context for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only lists formats which are already captured in the schema enum. It does not explain what 'content' should contain, the role of 'sessionId', or how 'format' controls parsing. Fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 tool's verb ('Replace or load'), resource ('construction state'), and scope ('from XML, base64 .ggb data, or fileJSON'). It is specific and directly distinguishes from sibling tools like ggb_get_state by indicating a write operation.

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 description implies usage when one needs to set or load state, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like ggb_reset or ggb_get_state. No when-not or alternative tool mentions, so usage is only derived from the action verb.

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

Deploy Server