qtpy-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

qt_layout_check

Scans visible Qt widgets to detect and report layout problems such as collapsed widgets, missing layout managers, clipped content, truncated text, and overlapping siblings.

Instructions

Detect layout issues in the visible widget tree.

Scans all visible widgets and reports problems like:

zero_size: Visible widget with 0x0 geometry (collapsed)
no_layout: Container with visible children but no layout manager
smaller_than_hint: Widget smaller than its sizeHint (content likely clipped)
text_truncated: Text content wider than widget width
overlapping_siblings: Sibling widgets with intersecting geometries

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`instance`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scan scope, the non-mutating 'detect/report' behavior, and defines each reported issue category, though it does not explicitly state read-only safety or performance characteristics.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, then uses a compact structured list to define issue categories. Every sentence and bullet earns its place.

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?

The tool's behavior and output categories are reasonably covered, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, the single optional parameter is completely undocumented and there is no usage routing, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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

Parameters1/5

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

There is one optional 'instance' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. It does not explain what 'instance' means, whether null selects all instances, or how string versus integer values are interpreted.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: detect layout issues in the visible widget tree. It further clarifies the tool's purpose by listing the exact issue categories it reports, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related inspection tools such as qt_object_tree or qt_widget_details.

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?

Usage is implied by the diagnostic nature of the tool and the issue list, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons are provided.

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