Security + bug + perf + refactor audit for Python. Returns 0-10 score + MD report.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: python_code_review provides a full structured report, while python_quality_score returns only a score and rating. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names use a consistent snake_case style with the `python_` prefix, and follow a verb_noun or [action]_[result] pattern (code_review, quality_score). The naming is predictable and uniform.
With only two tools, the server feels slightly thin for a code review domain. While the tools cover core needs, a typical server of this scope would benefit from 3-5 tools (e.g., separate linting or style checks). The count is borderline but not overly minimal.
The server covers a full review and a quick score, but lacks specialized tools for specific checks (e.g., security-only, formatting) or batch processing. The depth parameter in the review tool partially compensates, but the overall surface is limited to two operations, leaving some gaps in flexibility.
python_code_reviewCInspectReview Python code and output a structured report: security vulnerabilities, bug detection, performance optimization suggestions, code standards, and refactoring advice.
Args:
code: The Python code to review
depth: Review depth (quick/standard/deep)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| depth | No | standard |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output categories but fails to mention behavioral traits such as expected execution time for different depths, whether it is a read-only operation, or if any external calls are made. For a tool that could be expensive (deep review), this is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise—two sentences plus an argument list. It front-loads the tool's purpose and output categories. The argument section is efficient but adds needed detail since the schema lacks descriptions. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (code review) and the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits details like output format (JSON, markdown), behavior on invalid code, and any limitations. Compared to the sibling, it lacks context for choosing between tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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. It explains 'code' as 'The Python code to review' and 'depth' as 'Review depth (quick/standard/deep)', which adds value over the raw schema. However, it does not specify the expected format of the code string (e.g., snippet, file path) or elaborate on what 'quick/standard/deep' entails.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool reviews Python code and produces a structured report covering security, bugs, performance, standards, and refactoring. The verb and resource are specific, and the sibling tool python_quality_score implies a different scope, but explicit differentiation is absent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like python_quality_score, nor any conditions such as code size limits or required dependencies. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
python_quality_scoreBInspectReturn only the code quality score and brief rating, without a full report.
Args:
code: The Python code to score
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the output is a 'score and brief rating' but does not detail what the rating categories are, whether the tool is read-only, or any error behaviors. This is adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of a single sentence plus an Args section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured, e.g., by separating behavioral notes from parameter docs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 1 parameter, no annotations, an output schema (though not detailed in context), and a sibling 'python_code_review', the description is minimally complete: it states what it returns and what the parameter is. However, it lacks guidance on output format/range and when to use the sibling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes the 'code' parameter as 'The Python code to score', which adds slight context beyond the schema's type definition but does not explain expected format, size limits, or encoding. The baseline for 0% coverage and 1 param is 4, but the added value is minimal, so 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'the code quality score and brief rating' for a given Python code input. The verb 'Return' and resource 'code quality score' are specific, and the tool distinguishes itself from the sibling 'python_code_review' by omitting a full report.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly suggests this tool is for obtaining a quick score without a full report, which contrasts with typical code review tools. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus the sibling 'python_code_review', nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!