PyProject Doctor

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

inspect

Identify the package manager and Python environment used by a local project directory to diagnose setup and tooling issues.

Instructions

Inspect package manager and Python environment for one project.

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": "inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project`	Yes
`ruff_version`	Yes
`project_files`	Yes
`package_manager`	Yes
`python_environment`	Yes
`looks_like_python_project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, required permissions, whether the environment can be modified, or any operational constraints.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate, though the space saved is not used to add necessary qualifying detail.

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 the return format need not be explained. However, the tool still lacks critical context: the meaning and expected format of the only parameter, whether the operation is read-only, and how it relates to sibling tools. For a project-environment inspection tool, the definition is underspecified.

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, so the description must compensate. It only implies that path refers to 'one project' but does not explain whether it is a directory, a file, or a project root, nor what format is expected.

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 names a specific verb (Inspect) and resource (package manager and Python environment), so the agent can tell this is an environment-discovery tool rather than a code analyzer or linter. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like analyze or ruff_check, which keeps it below a 5.

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 phrase 'for one project' implies a per-project scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no mention of the sibling tools analyze or ruff_check. The agent must infer the selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server