wemake-python-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

lint_file

Lint a single Python file using wemake-python-styleguide rules. Receive structured violation reports to identify and fix style issues.

Instructions

Lint a single Python file using wemake-python-styleguide rules.

Args: path: Path to the Python (.py) file to lint.

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": "lint_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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 does not mention read-only behavior, error handling, output format, or any side effects. Even though an output schema exists, the description itself offers no transparency beyond stating the basic action.

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, containing only two sentences plus the argument documentation. It front-loads the core purpose and includes no redundant information, earning a perfect score for efficiency.

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 tool is simple with a single parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral details slightly reduces completeness, but given the simplicity, it remains adequate.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining the parameter 'path' as a path to a Python (.py) file, adding file-type specificity and intent. This is valuable and goes beyond the schema's bare 'string' type.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Lint'), a specific resource ('a single Python file'), and the applicable rule set ('wemake-python-styleguide rules'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'lint_project' and 'lint_code', which likely handle different scopes.

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 for a single Python file, which differentiates it from project-level linting. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving the decision partially implicit.

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

Deploy Server