codecalc

by The-40-Thieves

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

List Languages

list_languages

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists supported languages with their file extension, compile flag, installation status, and reliability tier.

Instructions

List every language codecalc can execute, with extension, compile flag, and what this machine resolved. status is installed (its command was found on the sandbox PATH) or supported (nothing for it here); status_basis is resolved, meaning nothing was executed to check. Run codecalc doctor --deep to promote a runtime to available by actually running it.

tier is a DIFFERENT axis from status: status says whether THIS machine resolved the command (resolution); tier says whether codecalc's own CI has actually executed this language and asserted on its output (reliability) — tested, best_effort (declared, plausibly works, never CI-checked), or plan_only (never validated anywhere). A language can be installed here and still be best_effort or worse — that combination is exactly "the toolchain resolved and may still be broken".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.2.0Aug 19, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- addedInput schema / title
```
Added value: +"list_languagesArguments"
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / result / title
```
Added value: +"Result"
```
- addedOutput schema / title
```
Added value: +"list_languagesOutput"
```
- removedOutput schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-result
```
Removed value: -true
```
First observedv0.1.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds crucial behavioral nuance: it states that status_basis is 'resolved' meaning nothing was executed, and distinguishes this from CI-tested reliability via the tier axis. It also discloses that a language can be installed yet still broken, which is a key limitation an agent must know. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 the primary purpose in the first sentence, then dives into clarifying the status and tier fields. Every sentence adds value—explaining the status values, the resolution basis, the doctor command, and the key distinction between status and tier. It is detailed but not wasteful; the length is justified by the two-axis complexity it must convey.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a list tool with an output schema, the description fully explains the semantics of the fields it returns (extension, compile flag, status, status_basis, tier) and all their possible values. It also provides guidance on how to get more thorough checks via `codecalc doctor --deep`. Nothing an agent needs to correctly interpret the output is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter explanations to add. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description does not reference parameters, which is appropriate since none exist.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List every language codecalc can execute, with extension, compile flag, and what this machine resolved.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_execution_providers and runtimes_status by focusing on languages and their resolution status. The added detail about status and tier further clarifies the scope.

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 implies usage by stating it lists languages and explains the status semantics, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. It does hint that `codecalc doctor --deep` is the way to promote a runtime, which suggests this tool is for a quick resolution check. No contradictory guidance, but no explicit 'when not to use' either.

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