Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
scratch-unified-mcp

scratch-unified-mcp

by blessed0x
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Spy Import Python File

spy_import_python_file

Turn an existing .py file into Scratch blocks. Provide the file path to import and convert Python code into editable blocks for Scratch projects.

Instructions

Turn an existing .py file on disk into blocks.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "spy_import_python_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not explain side effects, whether an open project is required, whether existing blocks are replaced, or what happens on failure. This is thin for an operation that likely mutates project state.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and the key constraint, delivering maximum information per word for such a simple tool.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is almost sufficient. The main gaps are usage context and behavioral side effects, which matter because no annotations exist to fill them.

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?

There is no parameter description in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'path' refers to a .py file on disk, which adds some meaning, but it omits details like relative vs absolute paths, file accessibility, or required format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Turn') and resource ('existing .py file on disk'), making the core action clear. It implies the reverse of spy_write_python, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose statement: import a Python file from disk to create blocks. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over related spy_* tools, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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