I really appreciate Stephen's mixture of skepticism combined with genuine interest in experimenting with these tools. Most MCP posts I've read have been so much hype I've been left with no clue what MCP actually does. This is the first article I've read on the topic that earnestly makes me want to start messing around with MCP for fun (and makes it clear how to get started).
It's a bit unfortunate that the field is so dominated by extremes of hype and skepticism, both of which aren't particularly helpful to getting problems really solved.
So, we’ve come full circle to symbolic AI! This article essentially suggests that LLMs could be effective translators of our requests to command-line code or input to symbolic AI software, which would then yield precise solutions. However, I feel this approach is overly mechanical, and I don’t believe AGI would be achieved by creating thousands, if not millions, of MCP servers on our machines. This is especially true because MCP lacks scalability, and anyone who has had to send more than three or four function schemas to a language model knows that excessive JSON schema complexity confuses the model and reduces its performance.
Awesome stuff! We use a similar approach (without MCP) to great effect with Prolog currently and feels like we're only just starting to scratch the surface here.
A great paper from Nasim Borazjanizadeh and Steven Piantadosi at UC Berkeley for those interested: Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.11373
For anyone digging in who wants to hack on this: arun [at] aloe.inc
Wonderfully cheeky but also helpfully informative writeup. Also appreciate the hat-tip to all the (as yet) unsolved security issues. Clearly MCP is onto something important, although undoubtedly the standard (or some replacement standard) will mature a fair bit before we're done with it. The flip side to that is, MCPs are probably as 'easier' to experiment with now than they are ever going to be.
Yes, but from a business point of view, NLP based GUIs have been the holy grail of marketing and customer support, especially in STEM apps market.
Case in point, Wolfram Alpha is not much more than an attempt to market Mathematica to lazy and failing college students. If that cost, and localization, can be offloaded to LLMs as the universal front end to technical software, it'd free up SWE resources to focus on core functionality.
If Magma, my favorite math/cryptography tool, had an LLM frontend, I could save time wasted onboarding new cryptographers.
On tensor notation: Tensor indices aren't bad (a good notation should guide a calculation and they do) but I can't help but feel they're far too error prone.
It might make more sense to give the model a Jupyter Notebook/code interpreter MCP as a more general case. The environment would have to have sympy, numpy, scipy, matplotlib etc. installed of course
I think this is the proper way to use llms for tasks that require high fidelity. currently im working on binary analysis using llms for natural language and letting ghidra/codeql do the symbolic work. scalability is a massive issue, perhaps the biggest besides fidelity.
its interesting to see many people come to the same neuro-symbolic conclusion around the same time.
Tangentially, are there any symbolic algebra systems that can handle millions of equations?
I have never used a symbolic algebra system, but came across a problem where I am trying to model a deterministic simulation system. I can write out the computation graph (~20 million equations for final state), but Sympy chokes on seemingly dozens of symbols. No hope of processing the final state or being able to express a simulation state in terms of my desired input variables.
Not sure if my expectations are mismatched with reality, I am hugely bungling the tool, or Sympy has laughable performance vs the more capable commercial options.
the implementations have a distinctly "I wrote this at a 3 AM hackathon" vibe
The LLM handles the natural language interaction and orchestration, while the computer algebra system does what it does best ... exact symbolic manipulation.
Adventures in Symbolic Algebra with Model Context Protocol
(stephendiehl.com)114 points by freediver 22 May 2025 | 30 comments
Comments
It's a bit unfortunate that the field is so dominated by extremes of hype and skepticism, both of which aren't particularly helpful to getting problems really solved.
A great paper from Nasim Borazjanizadeh and Steven Piantadosi at UC Berkeley for those interested: Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.11373
For anyone digging in who wants to hack on this: arun [at] aloe.inc
Case in point, Wolfram Alpha is not much more than an attempt to market Mathematica to lazy and failing college students. If that cost, and localization, can be offloaded to LLMs as the universal front end to technical software, it'd free up SWE resources to focus on core functionality.
If Magma, my favorite math/cryptography tool, had an LLM frontend, I could save time wasted onboarding new cryptographers.
https://magma.maths.usyd.edu.au/calc/
It will regularly use it and reliably when asked to.
I've found it useful for thought experiments around trading.
On tensor notation: Tensor indices aren't bad (a good notation should guide a calculation and they do) but I can't help but feel they're far too error prone.
What are the alternatives? Penrose diagrams?
https://github.com/equationscp/equationscp
its interesting to see many people come to the same neuro-symbolic conclusion around the same time.
Great quote.
I have never used a symbolic algebra system, but came across a problem where I am trying to model a deterministic simulation system. I can write out the computation graph (~20 million equations for final state), but Sympy chokes on seemingly dozens of symbols. No hope of processing the final state or being able to express a simulation state in terms of my desired input variables.
Not sure if my expectations are mismatched with reality, I am hugely bungling the tool, or Sympy has laughable performance vs the more capable commercial options.
The LLM handles the natural language interaction and orchestration, while the computer algebra system does what it does best ... exact symbolic manipulation.
this smells like claude :D