dev-env-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pip

Install, uninstall, list, show, or check packages inside a virtual environment with restricted options and safety confirmation for uninstalls.

Instructions

Run a restricted pip action inside the active venv.

Parameters:

action: install | uninstall | list | show | check
packages: list of packages/specs (e.g. ["requests", "numpy==2.1.0"])
options: allowlisted pip options only (see server policy)
confirm: required for uninstall (safety)

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "pip"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes
`packages`	No
`options`	No
`confirm`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the actions are restricted, options are allowlisted, and uninstall requires confirmation. This provides good behavioral context, though it could detail side effects or error handling more.

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 short, front-loaded with the main action, and uses a clear bulleted list for parameters. Every sentence is necessary and no fluff.

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 existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: actions, packages, options, and confirmation. Minor gaps like potential return formats for list/show/check are acceptable since the output schema likely handles that.

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 does so by explaining each parameter: action enum values, packages with example, options as allowlisted, and confirm as a safety flag for uninstall. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 it runs restricted pip actions inside the active venv, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like env_create or freeze, which manage virtual environments rather than pip commands.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives or situations where other tools are preferable, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

Deploy Server

pip