Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PyProject Doctor

PyProject Doctor

by SnoweTiger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

analyze

Inspects a Python project directory and runs Ruff lint and formatting checks, reporting issues without modifying files or installing dependencies.

Instructions

Inspect a project and run Ruff lint and formatting checks.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "analyze"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
checksYes
inspectionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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. It implies a read-only inspection but never states whether running formatting checks can modify files, what permissions are needed, or what the checks operate on. For a tool that combines inspection and linting, this leaves meaningful ambiguity.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is not padded, though it is arguably under-specified rather than concise by design.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but with no annotations, an undocumented parameter, and unclear sibling boundaries, the description does not provide enough for an agent to call this confidently over 'inspect' or 'ruff_check'.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required 'path' parameter, and the description does not clarify whether this is a project root directory or a file path. The one line of description does nothing to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a concrete verb and resource (inspect a project, run Ruff lint and formatting checks), which is more than a tautology. However, 'inspect' overlaps directly with the sibling tool named 'inspect', and it does not distinguish itself from 'ruff_check' either, leaving the agent unsure of the boundary between the three.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus 'inspect' or 'ruff_check'. Given two siblings that plausibly cover the same ground, the absence of routing language is a substantial gap.

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