Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LocalREPL MCP Server

LocalREPL MCP Server

by angrysky56
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

run_python_in_repl

Execute Python code in a new or existing REPL session, returning stdout, stderr, and the return value.

Instructions

Execute Python code in a REPL. (Create new or use an existing REPL)

Args:
    code: Python code to execute
    repl_id: ID of the REPL to use

Returns:
    str: Result of the execution including stdout, stderr, and the return value

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": {
      "code": "<code>",
      "repl_id": "<repl_id>"
    },
    "name": "run_python_in_repl"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes
repl_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools