Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PyProject Doctor

PyProject Doctor

by SnoweTiger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ruff_check

Run Ruff lint and formatting checks for a project path, returning structured results without changing files or installing dependencies.

Instructions

Run Ruff lint and formatting checks 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": "ruff_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lintYes
formatYes
statusYes
projectYes
ruff_versionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it leaves the most important question open: whether "formatting checks" merely report or actually rewrite files. It also says nothing about permissions, failure behavior, or how many projects can be checked in one call.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and free of filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail scored elsewhere.

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 for a single-parameter tool the definition should still clarify what `path` denotes and whether checks are non-destructive. Those gaps make it incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

The single parameter `path` has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only weakly implies it is a project root via "for one project." It doesn't say whether path may point to a file, a directory, or a config file.

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 and resource: running Ruff lint and formatting checks, scoped to "one project." It's clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the siblings analyze and inspect, so an agent must guess which of the three to reach for.

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 on when to use this versus analyze or inspect, no prerequisites, and no note on what the tool will not do. The agent is left to infer selection entirely from the tool names.

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