List installed Python distributions as name==version from the project's interpreter. Filter by a package name pattern, or leave it empty to show all installed packages.
List installed Python distributions (name==version) in the project's interpreter whose name contains pattern (empty pattern lists all).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | No | ||
| project_dir | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important behavioral scope (reads the project's interpreter, not the ambient environment) and the "name==version" output form, but says nothing about failure modes (missing interpreter), cost, or whether output is ordered/filtered further.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single dense sentence: verb first, parenthetical output format, then the parameter caveat. Nothing wasted and no postamble.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-param read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior adequately, but leaves one of two parameters (project_dir) and the return shape (list of strings? structure?) undocumented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 fully specifies `pattern` (substring match, empty means all). `project_dir` is only obliquely implied by "the project's interpreter" — its purpose, default, and accepted format are never stated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb ("List") plus a precise resource ("installed Python distributions") and scope ("in the project's interpreter"). The Python-specific framing clearly separates it from node_versions/node_types siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"empty pattern lists all" is useful call-time guidance for the optional pattern, but there is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the sibling tools (py_inspect, py_source, node_versions) that an agent could confuse it with.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.