LocalREPL MCP Server

by angrysky56

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: REPL lifecycle, shell process management, command history logging, and virtual environment usage. No two tools have overlapping purposes; descriptions clearly differentiate between one-shot shell commands, long-running processes, and Python execution contexts.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_python_repl, run_shell, query_command_history). The naming is predictable and intuitive, making it easy for an agent to infer functionality.
Tool Count4/5
With 23 tools, the server covers a broad but coherent set of functionalities for local REPL and shell management. While slightly above the typical sweet spot, each tool serves a specific purpose and justifies its presence without feeling redundant.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface comprehensively covers the domain: REPL creation/deletion/inspection, Python execution (both in-REPL and in-venv), shell command execution (one-shot and long-running), process management, command logging, and history queries. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
Average 3.6/5 across 23 of 23 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'get information' without describing side effects, authentication needs, or what the returned string contains. The return type 'str' is minimally informative.
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?
Description is short and uses a clear Args/Returns structure, making it easy to parse. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise by removing the docstring format if not needed.
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?
Given no output schema and many sibling tools, the description is too vague. It does not explain what 'information' entails (e.g., status, metadata, configuration), leaving the agent guessing about the tool's output and suitability.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only restates the parameter name ('ID of the REPL to get info for') without adding format, constraints, or examples. This adds little value beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool gets information about a specific REPL instance, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_active_repls or get_repl_cwd by targeting a single repl_id, but does not specify what 'information' includes.
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 tool vs alternatives. Siblings include get_repl_cwd and list_active_repls, but the description does not clarify when get_repl_info is appropriate or what tradeoffs exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., effect on existing shells, persistence, error handling, or authorization requirements). This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose, but it is too terse given the missing parameter and behavioral details. Every sentence should earn its place; here it omits essential context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or parameter constraints, leaving the agent without critical information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add parameter meaning but does not. It fails to explain what 'path' should be (absolute/relative) or 'repl_id' format. The schema titles alone are insufficient.
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 the tool changes a REPL's tracked working directory, specifying the verb 'Change' and the resource 'REPL's tracked working directory'. It distinguishes from sibling get_repl_cwd, which likely retrieves the current directory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the agent needs to update the working directory for future shell calls, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No exclusions or context relative to siblings are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only states it returns an ID. It omits side effects (e.g., process lifecycle), permissions, limits, or whether the REPL is persistent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, but it sacrifices completeness. It's not verbose, but missing critical information reduces its efficiency.
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?
For a tool with no params and no output schema, the description should explain what a REPL environment is, how to use it after creation, and any implicit behaviors. It only provides the return type.
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?
No parameters exist, so the schema is complete. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool creates a Python REPL environment, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like run_python_in_repl and delete_repl, though more detail could further clarify scope.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like spawn_shell or run_python_in_venv. There are no usage restrictions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It mentions 'Initialize' but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it modifies existing state or is safe to call multiple times), auth requirements, or error conditions.
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 very short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the Args/Returns struct is unnecessary for a single-parameter tool and adds marginal value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the basic functionality but lacks details on the return value (only says 'Result of the initialization') and does not explain what initialization entails. With no output schema, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning for the lone parameter 'repl_id' by stating it is the 'ID of the REPL to initialize in'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose but does not provide format or validation details.
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 clearly states the verb 'Initialize' and the resource 'Modular Empowerment Framework in a specific REPL'. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are mostly REPL management and shell operations, though 'Modular Empowerment Framework' is somewhat vague.
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 tool versus alternatives (e.g., other initialization or setup tools). No when-not or prerequisite conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool replaces any existing tags on the row, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention error handling, authorization requirements, or what happens if the command_id does not exist.
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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds examples and behavior. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and the overwriting behavior. However, it lacks details on error conditions or prerequisites, which would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning to parameters. It does not explain what 'command_id' or 'tags' represent beyond their names, nor does it provide constraints, format, or examples. The schema already shows required fields, but the description adds no value.
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 clearly states the tool attaches tags to a logged command for later recall, with specific examples like 'flaky', 'slow', etc. It uses a specific verb and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'forget_command' or 'query_command_history', which would merit 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 description provides examples of when to use the tool (marking commands as flaky, slow, etc.) but offers no guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist among sibling tools. There is no explicit statement of context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses blocking behavior and timeout, but does not mention side effects, error handling on timeout, or whether the tool is destructive. Basic transparency but lacks detail.
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?
A single sentence with no redundancies. Every word is necessary and the sentence is front-loaded.
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?
Given no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what 'exit info' includes, how to obtain 'proc_id', or behavior on timeout. Context from sibling tools is not leveraged.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not describe 'proc_id' or 'timeout_seconds', leaving the agent to infer meaning from names alone.
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 clearly states it blocks until a spawned process exits or times out, returning exit info. The verb 'block' and resource 'spawned process' are specific, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'reap_exited' that also handle exits.
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 alternatives like 'spawn_shell' or 'reap_exited'. Usage is only implied from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description is minimal and does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or return format. The tool is likely read-only, but this is not stated.
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?
Single sentence, no redundancy, efficiently conveys the core function.
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?
Lacks details on what the return value contains, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., that the REPL must exist and be running). Incomplete for a tool with no output schema.
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 coverage is 0%; the description does not explain the 'repl_id' parameter beyond its title in the schema. The parameter's purpose is somewhat obvious but not explicitly clarified.
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?
Describes a specific action: returning the REPL's current working directory. Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'set_repl_cwd'.
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 description of when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only mentions args but does not disclose side effects (e.g., process termination implications, safety). Missing behavioral context.
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?
Concise, no redundant sentences. Purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.
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?
No output schema; description fails to mention return values, async behavior, or process post-state. Incomplete for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description explains signal_name and remove_from_registry but omits required proc_id, only partially compensating.
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?
Clearly states 'Send a signal to a spawned process', which is a specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like spawn_shell, run_shell, etc.
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 tool versus alternatives. Does not explain signal selection context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states the action but omits details like whether it blocks, what happens if the process is dead, or the effect of the `append_newline` parameter. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with the essential action, then a use case. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide more context about prerequisites (e.g., process must be spawned), return value, or data format. It only covers the basic action and a minimal use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain what `proc_id`, `input_text`, or `append_newline` mean. The agent must infer from names, which is risky.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Write' and resource 'stdin of a spawned process', distinguishing it from siblings like 'run_shell' or 'spawn_shell'. Mention of 'interactive REPLs' adds specific context.
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 phrase 'Useful for interactive REPLs' provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the sibling list makes differentiation plausible.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states it deletes, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or reversibility. Minimal disclosure.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every word earns its place, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential. But lacks completeness on irreversible actions or permission requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and description does not elaborate on the 'command_id' parameter. No added meaning beyond the schema's type information.
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 deletes a command log row, using the verb 'Delete' and specifying the resource. It also provides a specific use case (secrets), making it distinct from siblings like query_command_history.
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?
Explicitly says when to use (captured secret), but does not discuss when not to use or alternatives. For a security-focused tool, the guidance is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes execution and return format (stdout, stderr, return value) but no annotations to lean on. Missing side effects, state changes, error handling, or auth requirements.
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?
Concise docstring format with purpose front-loaded. No filler, but additional parameter details could be added without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers execution and result structure, but without output schema or annotations, it omits error scenarios, REPL lifecycle, and state implications. Adequate for a simple tool but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage; description adds one-line explanations for code and repl_id. Adds basic meaning but lacks examples, constraints, or details on where to obtain repl_id.
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?
Clear verb ('Execute') and resource ('Python code in a REPL'). Distinguishes from siblings like run_python_in_venv and run_shell by specifying REPL context and ability to create new or reuse existing.
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 create new REPL vs use existing, or when to prefer this over run_python_in_venv or send_to_shell. Lacks explicit use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as irreversibility, permissions required, or impact on associated processes. This is insufficient for a destructive tool.
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 extremely concise with three lines for the main purpose, followed by Args and Returns. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Considering the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but lacks details on return value format or error handling. Could be more thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating 'ID of the REPL to delete' for the repl_id parameter. Given 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is adequate but minimal.
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 'Delete a REPL instance,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'kill_shell' or 'spawn_shell' by focusing on REPL deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a REPL needs to be removed, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'kill_shell' or prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It indicates aggregation and top-lists but omits behavioral traits like read-only status, side effects, or rate limits. The term 'aggregate' is vague regarding safety or mutation.
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 concise with a single-purpose sentence and a clear parameter list. It avoids fluff, though structure could be slightly improved (e.g., separating description from parameter details). Still efficient.
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 only 2 parameters with good semantic explanations, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete for an aggregation tool. It lacks output details but is sufficient for selecting the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds significant meaning: 'since' is explained (ISO or shorthand, default all time) and 'top_n' (number of entries per top-list). This fully compensates for the schema gap.
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 'Aggregate metrics across the command log', specifying both the verb (aggregate) and resource (command log metrics). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like query_command_history (raw history) and tag_command (tagging), making purpose unique.
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 description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies use for aggregated stats, but no when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions are given, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Description mentions reclaiming disk space and preventing unbounded growth but omits critical behavioral details such as whether the operation is destructive, reversible, blocking, or requires special permissions. This leaves significant ambiguity for a data-modifying tool.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Keep only the most recent N rows'). Every word serves a purpose; no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple maintenance tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about side effects, blocking behavior, or what 'rows' refers to. Given the sibling tool complexity, a bit more detail would improve completeness.
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 parameter 'keep_last_n'. The description does not mention the parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the tool description should at least reference it to clarify its role in the operation, especially with no output 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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Keep only the most recent N rows' and the resource 'memory', with specific outcome 'reclaim disk space'. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on command execution, REPLs, and shells, making this the only memory management tool.
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?
Description includes 'Call occasionally to prevent unbounded growth', providing clear when-to-use guidance. While it does not explicitly list when not to use, the sibling tools offer no memory management alternatives, so the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses the scope (all spawned processes, live and recently-exited) but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format. No annotations provided; description carries full burden and is minimally adequate.
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?
Single sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core function. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could specify the type of info returned (e.g., PIDs, command names). Missing details about output structure.
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?
No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. Description adds no param info because none needed.
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?
Description clearly states it returns info on all spawned processes, including live and recently-exited. This distinguishes it from sibling list_active_repls which likely shows only active ones.
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 tool versus alternatives like list_active_repls or get_repl_info. The description does not help an agent choose correctly among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool lists active repls and IDs, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication or what 'active' means. Adequate but not detailed.
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 extremely concise with a single well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential information (listing active repls and IDs). However, it could clarify the meaning of 'active' or the output format. Still, it is mostly complete for a simple tool.
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 no parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description does not need to add parameter info beyond the schema, so baseline 4 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'active REPL instances and their IDs', which is clear and distinguishes from sibling tools like create or delete repls.
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 tool versus alternatives such as get_repl_info or list_shells. The description does not mention any context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description covers key behaviors: returns newest first, limit capped at 200, SQL LIKE pattern case-insensitive. It does not disclose side effects or authorization needs, but for a read query this is adequate.
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?
Well-structured with bullet-point parameter descriptions and a return section. Every sentence is informative, no wasted words.
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?
The description covers all parameters, explains return type (list of CommandLogEntry, newest first), and mentions the limit cap. It does not detail the CommandLogEntry fields, but this is likely documented elsewhere. Adequate for tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 6 parameters, including pattern syntax, default values, and the limit cap, adding significant value 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 searches the command execution log, with specific parameters listed. It is distinct from siblings like command_stats and forget_command.
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 alternatives. The description does not mention any context for choosing it over other sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the tool as spawning a long-running process, returning a proc_id for polling, and lists related tools. Implies non-blocking behavior but could explicitly state that it does not wait for completion.
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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses clear bullet-like formatting for examples. No wasted words.
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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers return value and lifecycle with other tools. Missing details on failure modes or resource usage, but adequate for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of any parameters (command, cwd, repl_id, env_extra, use_shell). Without parameter semantics, agents cannot determine correct usage.
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 spawns a long-running process and returns a proc_id. It distinguishes from run_shell by specifying it's for watchers, servers, REPLs, and commands to poll over time.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use (watchers, servers, REPLs) and when not to (one-shot commands, use run_shell instead). Also mentions that proc_id is used by other tools, providing clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It indicates a destructive mutation but does not detail side effects, reversibility, or safety. Adequate for a simple cleanup tool but lacks behavioral depth.
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?
Two sentences front-load the purpose and usage guidelines without extraneous words. Highly efficient.
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?
Covers core purpose and usage context. Lacks explanation of 'registry' or potential side effects, but sufficient for a zero-parameter cleanup tool in a familiar domain.
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?
No parameters exist (empty schema), so baseline 4 applies. Description correctly omits parameter details as none are needed.
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 the action ('Remove exited processes from the registry') and the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_shells (listing) and spawn_shell (creation).
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to call ('occasionally', 'after running many short spawns') and why ('keep list_shells tidy'). Does not specify when not to use, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without any annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains critical behavioral details: the 'n_lines' cap at 500, and the 'drain' mode that removes returned lines from the buffer so subsequent calls see new output. It does not cover error handling (e.g., invalid proc_id) or detailed return format, but the provided traits are substantial.
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 concise and well-structured: a single-line summary followed by bullet-point style parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. The summary is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite good parameter descriptions, the tool lacks output schema and annotations, and the description does not specify the return format (e.g., string, list) or error behavior (e.g., invalid process ID). This leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the parameter explanations in the description are essential. Each parameter is clearly described: 'proc_id' is from spawn_shell, 'n_lines' is capped at 500 (default 50), 'stream' options are 'stdout', 'stderr', or 'both', and 'drain' behavior removes lines from buffer. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 the tool returns the most recent lines from a spawned process's output. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('shell output'), and implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spawn_shell and kill_shell by focusing on reading output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the 'drain' parameter is 'useful for polling loops', which hints at a use case, but there are no comparisons or exclusions relative to the many sibling shell tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description clearly discloses the search order and return value. It does not mention side effects, but since the tool is read-only and non-destructive, the description is adequate.
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 concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It uses three sentences to convey purpose, behavior, and parameter semantics efficiently.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no nested objects. The description covers the return value and how it relates to run_python_in_venv, making it sufficiently complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 explains that repl_id is the REPL whose cwd to search under, adding meaning beyond the schema's 'Repl Id' label. However, it does not provide additional details like expected format or examples.
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 explicitly states the tool locates a virtual environment, specifies the search order (.venv/, venv/, env/), and explains it returns the python binary path. It also mentions the output can be fed to run_python_in_venv, distinguishing it from sibling tools.
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 the search order and linking to run_python_in_venv, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools like run_python_in_repl or mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: structured dict return, logging to evolution.db, timeout cap (600), use_shell tokenization vs. /bin/sh, env_extra merging, stdin piping. However, no mention of error handling or permission requirements.
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?
Well-structured with a clear docstring format and front-loaded purpose. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value; could tighten the parameter descriptions minimally.
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?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably thorough: covers return format, logging, parameter behavior, and shell vs. execve trade-offs. Leaves no major gaps for an agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 7 parameters are individually explained with context (e.g., stdin_input enables first-class piping). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by adding meaning beyond property names.
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?
Description clearly states 'Run a shell command inside a REPL context with structured output,' specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like run_python_in_repl by focusing on shell commands in a REPL.
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?
Implies usage for executing shell commands with structured output and logging, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. siblings (e.g., send_to_shell). No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that each call spawns a new subprocess with no namespace carryover. Mentions timeout cap (600s) and that PYTHONPATH must be manually passed. Without annotations, this is strong, though it could note whether stderr is silently captured.
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?
Front-loaded with a one-line summary, followed by organized blocks for behavioral notes, parameter docs, and return type. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or fluff.
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?
Covers all 6 parameters, explicates the return structure (VenvResult), and includes edge cases like timeout truncation and env_extra PYTHONPATH guidance. Fully compensates for missing annotations and output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains every parameter in detail. It clarifies venv_path can be a directory or binary path, repl_id inherits cwd, and env_extra merges onto os.environ. Adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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?
Clearly states 'Run Python code inside a project's virtual environment' using a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like run_python_in_repl by emphasizing isolation and dependency separation.
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?
Explicitly advises use when project dependencies are missing from the MCP server's environment. Gives important caveats like PYTHONPATH not being auto-set, but could be improved by naming an alternative sibling (e.g., run_python_in_repl) for contrast.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![local-repl-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/angrysky56/local-repl-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/angrysky56/local-repl-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![local-repl-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/angrysky56/local-repl-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/angrysky56/local-repl-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/angrysky56/local-repl-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server