MCP Python Interpreter

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between write_file and write_python_file, as both handle file writing with similar arguments, which could cause confusion. However, descriptions clarify that write_python_file is specifically for Python files, reducing ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., install_package, list_directory, run_python_code), with clear and predictable naming throughout the set. No deviations or mixed conventions are present.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the count is well-scoped for a Python interpreter server, covering package management, file operations, code execution, and environment handling. Each tool serves a clear purpose without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for core Python interpreter tasks, including installation, execution, and file management. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for deleting files or packages, but agents can work around this using existing tools like write_file with overwrite or system commands.
Average 3.5/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral details. It mentions code runs in the working directory and environment selection, but lacks critical information like security implications, timeout limits, error handling, or output format. This is inadequate for a code execution tool with mutation potential.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is structured but slightly verbose; every sentence adds value, though it could be more streamlined (e.g., merging the working directory note).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (code execution with potential side-effects), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It misses critical details like return value structure, error cases, safety warnings, or execution constraints, making it insufficient for safe agent use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for all three parameters: 'code' as Python code to execute, 'environment' with default behavior explained, and 'save_as' with its utility. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it could detail environment options or save_as format.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Execute Python code and return the result', which is specific (verb+resource) and distinguishes it from siblings like run_python_file. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., install_package might also execute code indirectly).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_python_file or other siblings. It mentions the working directory and environment but doesn't explain scenarios where direct code execution is preferred over file-based execution or other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it modifies system state irreversibly, potential side effects (e.g., dependency conflicts), or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value: the first sets context, and the Args section clarifies parameters without redundancy. It's front-loaded and wastes no words.
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?
Given 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or return values. For a package installation tool that modifies environments, more context on safety and outcomes would be beneficial.
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 description adds meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains that 'environment' defaults to system if no custom path, clarifies 'upgrade' applies if already installed, and provides default values not in the schema. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail parameter formats or constraints.
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 clearly states the action ('Install') and resource ('Python package in the specified environment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like list_installed_packages (listing vs installing) but doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives like run_python_code for package usage.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., environment must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for system packages vs pip), or compare with siblings like write_file for manual installation. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on traits like output format (e.g., list of strings, JSON), whether it includes virtual environments, error handling, or performance implications. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place by clarifying the resource scope. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, the agent might struggle with how to interpret results or handle edge cases, making it incomplete for optimal use.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('system Python and conda environments'), which isn't captured in the schema. This compensates well, but since there are no parameters, the baseline is high, and it doesn't fully address potential implicit parameters like filtering options.
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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all available Python environments', specifying both system Python and conda environments. It distinguishes from siblings like list_directory or list_installed_packages by focusing on environments rather than files or packages. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from run_python_code or run_python_file in terms of when to use each, keeping it from a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing conda installed for conda environments, or compare it to siblings like list_installed_packages for package listings. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, the agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool executes a file and returns the result, but doesn't cover critical aspects like security implications (e.g., system access), error handling, execution timeouts, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that runs arbitrary code.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured parameter list. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise (e.g., by combining details).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of executing Python files (involving security, dependencies, and output handling), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, execution limits, and how it differs from siblings like 'run_python_code', making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'file_path' (path to the Python file), 'environment' (Python environment to use), and 'arguments' (command-line arguments). It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, such as relative vs. absolute paths and default behaviors.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('a Python file'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_python_code' (which might execute code directly rather than from a file), leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.
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?
The description implies usage by specifying what the tool does, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_python_code' or other siblings. It mentions parameters like 'environment' and 'arguments' which hint at context, but lacks clear when/when-not statements or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that overwriting is optional (default: False) and system access may be required, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like error handling (e.g., if file doesn't exist or path is invalid), permissions needed, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with a clear opening sentence and a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, and it's front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor improvements could include removing redundancy in the Args (e.g., 'default: False' is already in schema) or tightening phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers basic parameter semantics but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., errors, permissions), return values, or interactions with siblings. For a file-writing operation, more context on safety and outcomes is needed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'file_path' is explained as relative or absolute, 'content' as what to write, and 'overwrite' with its default and purpose. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it could detail format constraints (e.g., Python syntax).
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 clearly states the verb ('Write') and resource ('Python file'), specifying it writes content to a file. It distinguishes from siblings like 'write_file' by specifying Python files, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other file operations. The purpose is specific but could better differentiate from similar tools.
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?
The description implies usage for writing Python files in the working directory or system-wide, with a note about system access. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'write_file' or 'run_python_code', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is contextually implied but lacks clear guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read-only listing operation, which is straightforward, but lacks details on output format (e.g., list structure, package details), potential errors (e.g., if environment doesn't exist), or performance considerations. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.
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 highly concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the 'Args' section efficiently explains the parameter without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and there's no unnecessary information, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics well, but lacks details on output (what the list includes, format) and error handling. For a listing tool, this might suffice, but without annotations or output schema, it leaves the agent guessing about the return values, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'environment' by explaining its semantics: it specifies the Python environment name, clarifies the default behavior ('default if custom path provided, otherwise system'), and implies it's optional. With schema description coverage at 0% (the schema only provides a title and type), the description fully compensates by detailing the parameter's role and default logic, earning a high score.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('installed packages') along with the target context ('for a specific Python environment'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'install_package' (which installs rather than lists) and 'list_python_environments' (which lists environments rather than packages). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_directory' or other listing tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
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?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'for a specific Python environment,' suggesting this tool should be used when targeting packages within an environment rather than system-wide. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_directory' (which might list files) or 'list_python_environments' (which lists environments themselves), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, resulting in a score of 3.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action (listing files) and parameter usage, but does not address important behaviors such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the path is invalid), output format (e.g., list structure), or permissions needed. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and parameter details following in a clear, bullet-like format. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes).
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and parameters well. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or output format, which are important for completeness even in simple tools. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains the parameter 'directory_path' in detail, including its purpose, how to specify paths (relative or absolute), and default behavior (empty for working directory). This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Python files in a directory or subdirectory'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_installed_packages or read_file. It precisely defines what is being listed and where.
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?
The description implies usage by specifying 'Python files' and directory paths, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_installed_packages or run_python_file. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it reads file content, has size limits for safety, and returns either content or an error message. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or specific error types, but covers the core behavior adequately.
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?
Perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place - the safety note is valuable, and the parameter explanations are essential given the 0% schema coverage.
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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: purpose, parameters, return behavior, and safety considerations. It doesn't explain the exact format of error messages or provide examples, but is largely complete for this complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: file_path ('Path to the file (relative to working directory or absolute)') and max_size_kb ('Maximum file size to read in KB (default: 1024)'). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Read the content of any file') and resource ('file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like write_file or list_directory. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement with the size limit qualification.
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?
The description implies usage context through the size limit safety note, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like write_file or list_directory. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool writes content to files, supports relative/absolute paths depending on system access, and has an overwrite option. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, error conditions, or rate limits, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured Args/Returns section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy.
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?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return type, but lacks details on error handling or security implications, which would be beneficial for a file-writing operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It adds substantial meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter's purpose, defaults, and constraints (e.g., file_path can be relative or absolute, overwrite defaults to False, encoding defaults to utf-8). This provides complete parameter semantics.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Write content to a file') and resource ('a file in the working directory or system-wide'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_file (which reads) and write_python_file (which is Python-specific). The verb+resource combination is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (writing files in the working directory or system-wide), but it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like write_python_file for Python-specific files. The guidance is helpful but not fully comparative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-python-interpreter MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PortPro-Technologies-Inc/mcp-python-interpreter/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PortPro-Technologies-Inc/mcp-python-interpreter)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-python-interpreter MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PortPro-Technologies-Inc/mcp-python-interpreter/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/PortPro-Technologies-Inc/mcp-python-interpreter)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/PortPro-Technologies-Inc/mcp-python-interpreter'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server