Skip to main content
Glama
Alberto-Codes

docvet

by Alberto-Codes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

docvet_rules

List all available docvet rules with categories, fix guidance, and examples to enforce Python docstring quality.

Instructions

List all available docvet rules with fix guidance.

Returns the complete rule catalog with rule name, associated check
module, human-readable description, category (required or
recommended), prescriptive fix guidance, and a format example.

Returns:
    JSON string with a ``rules`` array containing objects with
    ``name``, ``check``, ``description``, ``category``,
    ``guidance``, and ``fix_example`` keys.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.16.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It makes clear this is a static catalog read by describing the returned payload in detail, but it never explicitly states that the call has no side effects, is safe to repeat, or requires no configuration; the return enumeration also largely duplicates the output schema rather than adding behavioral context.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded and wastes nothing. However, the multi-line 'Returns:' block enumerates keys that the output schema already defines, so a meaningful chunk of the text does not earn its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter catalog tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose and payload adequately and need not explain return values further. The only real gap is the absence of guidance on how this relates to docvet_check.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the call is argument-free by framing it as a full catalog listing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('docvet rules') and immediately adds scope ('all available', 'with fix guidance'). An agent can tell this is the rule catalog, but the description never mentions the sibling docvet_check, so differentiation must be inferred from the names alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus docvet_check, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. A reader can guess it is a lookup helper, but nothing in the text routes the agent between the two tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools