Skip to main content
Glama

Multi-file Python package with tests and README

submit_python_multifile_package
Idempotent

Produce a small multi-module Python package from a registered, deterministic template: an implementation module, a public facade, a pytest suite, and a README. Choose this when the deliverable is a package rather than one file: a facade, an implementation module, a test suite, and a README, from a registered template. Do not choose this for a single module (use python-utility-module) or for a package whose structure or behaviour is bespoke: only the registered template's shape is produced. Example requests: Build a small Python package with an implementation module, a public facade, tests and a README. | I need a multi-file Python deliverable, not a single script. | Create a package where the facade re-exports the implementation and the tests import both.

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": {
      "inputs": "<inputs>",
      "authorized_by": "<authorized_by>"
    },
    "name": "submit_python_multifile_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputsYes
quote_idNoThe quote_id returned by POST /v1/jobs. Required to authorize a priced capability; the service rejects a priced job that does not name the quote it issued.
authorized_byYesIdentifier of the human or agent authorizing this job.
accepted_priceNoThe amount accepted, exactly as quoted (for example "5.00" or 5). Checked against the stored quote, so a price that moved between quote and authorize is refused rather than silently absorbed. Optional, but sent to make the acceptance explicit.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quoteNo
stateYes
job_idYes
artifactsNo
access_tokenNoPer-job credential. Present it as the X-Job-Token header to read the job or list it. Keep it; it is the only credential for this job.
verificationNoIndependent verification. verification.ok = false means the job failed, not a partial success.
capability_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces determinism and states the output is bounded by "only the registered template's shape." However it never discloses the submission/gating behaviour an agent actually needs: that the call authorizes a priced job, that it is tied to a quote, and that work is asynchronous. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The routing constraint is front-loaded well, but the package contents are listed twice ("an implementation module, a public facade, a pytest suite, and a README" then again as "a facade, an implementation module, a test suite, and a README, from a registered template"). Three example requests add some disambiguation value but pad a definition that could be two sentences shorter.

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 and the nested inputs object is well specified, so return values and parameters do not need prose. What is missing is the surrounding workflow context for a mutation/job tool: how this relates to preflight_job, quote issuance, and downstream status checks. Adequate for calling, thin for using correctly in sequence.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 75%, so the schema largely documents itself (module_name, function_name, template, quote_id, accepted_price all have per-property text). The description adds only the constraint that the template's shape is fixed and test-verified; it says nothing about how module_name/function_name should be chosen or what the quote/price fields imply.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Produce a small multi-module Python package from a registered, deterministic template") and enumerates the four artifacts produced. It then explicitly separates itself from the closest sibling (python-utility-module) and from bespoke packages, so an agent can route without consulting either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit positive condition ("deliverable is a package rather than one file"), two explicit negative conditions (single module -> python-utility-module; bespoke structure/behaviour -> not this tool), and three example requests that illustrate the boundary. This is the strongest part of the definition.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources