uv-mcp

by yriveiro

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
Disambiguation2/5
With 50 tools, many share overlapping purposes, such as multiple `run` variants and cache-related commands. Agents may struggle to select between `cache_dir` and `cache_size` or `diagnose_environment` and `repair_environment`.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names mostly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, but a few like `manifest`, `dependency_tree`, and bare `pip` deviate slightly.
Tool Count1/5
Exposing 50 tools is excessive for an MCP server, which typically benefits from a smaller, focused set; even complex tools like uv should be scoped down.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full breadth of uv functionality including project management, pip, Python installations, tools, and caching, leaving no obvious gaps.
Average 3.4/5 across 50 of 50 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits 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 Apache 2.0.
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?
The idempotentHint annotation indicates safe re-runs, but the description does not disclose what actions synchronization performs (e.g., installing/uninstalling packages, mutating the lockfile, requiring network). It leaves the user guessing about side effects and requirements.
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 short sentence, so it is concise, but it lacks substance. It does not earn its place by providing actionable information, unlike more useful descriptions that mention scope or alternatives. It is not overly verbose, but it is under-specified.
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?
Despite having full schema parameter descriptions, an output schema, and an idempotence annotation, the tool description is too vague to be complete. It fails to explain the tool's role in the project lifecycle or how it relates to many similarly named sibling tools, leaving the agent without adequate context to choose or invoke it correctly.
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?
All three parameters (locked, dry_run, upgrade) have full descriptions in the input schema, so the schema covers parameter semantics thoroughly. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, making a baseline score of 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Synchronize the project environment' identifies a verb (synchronize) and a resource (project environment), but it does not specify what synchronization entails or how it differs from sibling tools like pip_sync or lock. It is a clear but vague statement of purpose.
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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many tools that could overlap (e.g., pip_sync, lock, init), but the description offers no context for selection or exclusion.
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 alone must disclose behavioral traits. 'Reinstall' implies a potentially destructive action, but the description does not state whether it requires an internet connection, whether it replaces the existing version, or whether it affects virtual environments. It only states the action without any safety or side-effect information.
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 a single concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It does not waste words, although it could include more useful context; this dimension rewards the efficient structure.
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 reinstall operation with no annotations, the description lacks critical context such as whether the operation is destructive, whether it can be reverted, or how the 'version' parameter is interpreted (e.g., exact version vs. range). The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the behavioral gaps remain.
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 input schema provides a description for the 'version' parameter ('Python version request.'), and the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'reinstall' and identifies the resource as 'a managed Python version', which is specific and actionable. However, the tool name is 'python_upgrade' while the description says 'reinstall' rather than 'upgrade', creating ambiguity about whether this tool upgrades the version or simply reinstalls the same one. This ambiguity prevents a higher score.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like python_install, python_uninstall, or python_find. The description gives no context for selecting this tool, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description only states the action without disclosing side effects, whether it modifies a manifest, installs the package, updates lockfiles, or requires network access. This leaves the agent without information about the tool's behavioral traits.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words and immediately states the tool's purpose. However, it may be too minimal to be fully informative, which is why it earns a 4 rather than 5.
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?
Despite a simple two-parameter schema and output schema, the description lacks crucial context about the tool's behavior, such as whether it updates the lockfile, installs the package, or only edits the dependency manifest, and provides no usage guidance relative to siblings. This makes the description insufficient for reliable tool selection.
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 input schema fully documents both parameters (package_name and version) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 the verb 'Add' with object 'a dependency' and scope 'current project', clearly identifying the action. It is concise but does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like pip_install or remove, which also operate on project dependencies.
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 such as pip_install, sync, or lock, nor any conditions under which it should not be used. The description only states the basic action, leaving usage decisions to the agent.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is established. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as network usage, return format, or the effect of flags like 'locked' or 'frozen'. It only restates the purpose.
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 a single clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with no redundant words. It efficiently states the purpose and 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 the tool has 10 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and interaction with parameters. Although the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety, the description is not complete enough for an agent to know when and how to invoke this tool appropriately.
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 100%, with all 10 parameters having detailed descriptions in the input schema. The description itself does not mention parameters, but since the schema fully covers them, it meets the baseline.
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 the verb 'Audit' and specifies the resource 'project dependencies' and the purpose 'for known vulnerabilities and adverse statuses'. It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool_audit, so it misses the top score.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tool_audit, nor any context about project vs script audits or environment considerations. It simply states the function without any situational advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It gives zero information about side effects (e.g., environment modification), permissions, network requirements, or error behavior. It essentially restates the tool name.
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 a single sentence with no filler, making it very concise. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification, though this is acceptable given the schema's completeness.
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?
The presence of an output schema and well-defined input schema helps, but the description lacks essential usage context, behavioral details, and side-effect warnings. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is incomplete.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (package_name, version, venv_path), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 identifies the action ('Install') and the resource ('a package using uv pip'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pip_uninstall or pip_list. It is specific and matches the tool name without being tautological.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `add`, `sync`, or `pip_compile`. The description only states the basic action without any context, prerequisites, 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?
The description mentions 'synchronize' but does not disclose that this may uninstall packages not in the requirements file or modify the environment in other ways. The destructiveHint annotation already signals danger, but the description adds little beyond that, failing to explain what gets destroyed.
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 a single, direct sentence with no superfluous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action effectively.
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?
Despite the presence of a destructive annotation and output schema, the description is too thin for safe autonomous use. It does not explain what 'synchronize' entails (e.g., removing extra packages), nor does it offer any usage context, making it insufficiently complete for a destructive operation.
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 input schema fully describes the single parameter (requirements_file) with 'Requirements file to install.' The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('synchronize') and resource ('environment to a requirements file'), clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as 'sync' or 'pip_install', so it misses the highest mark.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use pip_sync versus alternatives like pip_install, pip_uninstall, or pip_compile. The description provides no context for tool selection, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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 carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'pin a Python version,' implying a mutation but not specifying what file is modified, whether existing pins are overwritten, or any side effects. No output or error behavior is mentioned.
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 a single concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without waste. It is front-loaded and every word contributes 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool: it doesn't describe the effect on the project, what the project_path parameter does, or any caveats. Given the many sibling tools and missing annotations, this is insufficient.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'pin' with a clear resource ('Python version in a project'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like python_install or python_list. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or clarify what 'pin' modifies, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without mentioning use cases, prerequisites, or excluding related tools like python_install for installing versions.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the generic action. It does not warn that running arbitrary commands can have side effects, modify the project, or execute untrusted code, which is significant for a command-runner 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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose, with no wasted content.
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 broad and potentially dangerous tool that runs arbitrary commands in a project environment, the description is too sparse. It lacks any context about safety, environment behavior, or how it relates to sibling run_script and run_tool tools, making it incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.
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 input schema already documents the single 'command' parameter with a clear description ('Command and arguments to pass to uv run'), covering 100% of parameters. The main description adds only the generic phrase 'command or script,' which does not meaningfully expand on 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 uses a clear verb ('Run') with a specific resource ('a command or script in the project environment'), making the basic purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like run_script and run_tool, which likely have overlapping purposes.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does and gives no context for selecting it over run_script, run_tool, or other related commands.
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 convey behavioral traits, but it only mentions 'ephemeral'. It does not disclose installation side effects, caching, network requirements, or failure modes, which are important for a tool that runs arbitrary packages.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately concise, though it could include additional context without becoming verbose.
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?
Despite a simple schema and an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It fails to mention how the tool relates to sibling tools, what 'ephemeral' implies for state, or any return behavior, making it insufficient for reliable tool selection.
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 schema already describes both parameters ('package' and 'arguments') with 100% coverage, so the description adds no extra parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic burden.
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's action ('Run') and resource ('an ephemeral tool through uv'), indicating it executes a tool in a temporary context. This differentiates it from sibling commands like 'run' (project execution) and 'run_script', though not explicitly.
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 such as 'run', 'run_script', or 'tool_install'. The description does not mention exclusions or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, such as whether distribution files are written to disk, whether dependencies are installed, or any required environment. This is a significant gap for a build action that likely creates artifacts.
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 a single, concise sentence with zero wasted words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and is well-structured.
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 (one optional parameter), high schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and usage context, making it only a baseline complete description.
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 coverage is 100%, with the only parameter 'project_path' described as 'Optional project working directory.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Build source and wheel distributions for a project' clearly identifies the action (build) and the resource (source and wheel distributions). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like publish, bump_version, or pip_compile, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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. The description only states what the tool does, with no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when other tools would be more appropriate.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new project.' and does not reveal side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing files), required permissions, or whether it installs dependencies. This is a significant gap for a tool that creates resources.
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 a single, five-word sentence that conveys the primary purpose with zero waste. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable. While brevity could hide necessary detail, that is accounted for in other dimensions, and this sentence earns its place.
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 tool has four optional parameters and an output schema, which provide moderate context. The schema and sibling set suggest this is a project initializer for Python tools. However, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., what files are created, whether it runs commands) and does not explain how init relates to other tools like add or remove. Given the schema richness, the description is just adequate but not complete.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its four parameters, including 'Optional project name', 'Optional target path', 'app or lib' template, and 'Optional Python version request'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema already does heavy lifting, so the baseline of 3 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 'Create a new project.' clearly states the core action and resource (new project). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like build or run, though it does not explicitly call out any scope or differentiation. Overall, it is a clear, concise purpose statement.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The schema and sibling names imply it is for initializing Python projects, but the description itself gives no usage direction.
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 itself. 'Run an arbitrary uv pip command' hints at broad side effects but does not state that it can install, uninstall, modify environments, require permissions, or produce variable outputs, leaving the agent without critical safety context.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action efficiently, though it is slightly under-specified rather than economically complete.
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?
Despite an output schema being present, the description omits essential context for an arbitrary-command tool: no mention of side effects, environment changes, or preference for specialized siblings. Without this, an agent cannot fully judge the tool's impact or appropriate use.
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 schema already fully documents the sole parameter (command) as 'Arguments passed after uv pip', and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 a specific verb ('Run') and identifies the resource ('uv pip command'), clearly stating the tool's function. The word 'arbitrary' differentiates it from specialized sibling tools like pip_install or pip_list, signaling it is a generic passthrough.
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 given on when to use this generic passthrough versus the many dedicated sibling tools. The description does not mention preferring pip_install for installs, pip_uninstall for removals, or warn about using arbitrary commands.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Update' but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it fetches from network, overwrites files, or requires permissions). The parameter description in the schema hints at refresh behavior, but the main description does not elaborate on safety or consequences.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and resource, demonstrating excellent conciseness.
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 tool is simple (one optional parameter) and has an output schema, which covers return values. However, the description lacks usage context and behavioral details, making it incomplete for an agent deciding when and how to invoke the tool safely. It is adequate but with clear gaps.
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 100%, with the single 'force' parameter already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not go beyond.
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's action ('Update') and resource ('cached UV documentation'), conveying the basic purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling cache-related tools like cache_clean or cache_prune, so it lacks direct sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear direction on selecting update_cache over other cache-related tools.
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 provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., writing to disk), default behavior when output_file is omitted, or any potential error conditions. The single sentence only states the basic function.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and immediately communicates the core purpose.
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?
Despite having a small parameter set and an output schema, the description omits critical context like how the output file is determined when not specified, potential overwrite behavior, and relation to iterative workflows. Users are left with significant ambiguity.
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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's descriptions, offering nothing about parameter relationships or format expectations.
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 action ('Compile'), the resource ('a requirements input file'), and the result ('into a pinned requirements file'), which directly distinguishes it from related tools like pip_freeze or export_requirements.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pip_freeze, export_requirements, or lock. The description lacks context on prerequisites or typical scenarios.
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?
The annotation already declares destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds the target scope ('dangling cache entries and environments'), which is useful context, but it does not explain irreversibility, specific data affected, or any side effects beyond what the annotation implies. It provides some added context but not rich behavioral 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the verb 'prune' and clearly identifies the target. Every word contributes to the purpose, achieving maximum conciseness.
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 tool is relatively simple with one optional parameter and an output schema present, so it does not need to explain return values. However, the description lacks usage guidance and minimal detail about what 'dangling' means in practice. While the annotation covers destructiveness, the description is still thin on context for an agent to decide when to invoke this over similar cache-management tools.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'ci', including its default and description. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.
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 'prune' and identifies the resources: dangling cache entries and environments. This is clearly distinct from a generic 'clean' or 'delete' and hints at removing stale or orphaned data. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cache_clean or update_cache, so it misses full sibling distinction.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cache_clean or update_cache. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context hints. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
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 fully disclose behavior. It states 'Create a virtual environment and optionally install packages,' which indicates a mutating action but does not explain what happens if the path already exists, which Python version is used, or any other side effects or requirements.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the primary purpose and optional behavior in ten words, with every word earning its place.
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 tool is low-complexity with two parameters and an output schema, so a concise description could be sufficient. However, the description lacks any contextual guidance on when to use it relative to the many sibling tools and does not mention potential edge cases, making it only minimally adequate.
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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions ('Environment path.' and 'Optional packages to install.'), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'optionally install packages' mirrors the schema and adds no new semantic detail.
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 a specific verb 'create' and identifies the resource 'virtual environment', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on dependencies, building, or Python version management. It also adds the optional package-install behavior, which goes beyond the tool's name to clarify its functionality.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'init', 'build', or 'python_install'. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and does not reveal side effects, whether the lockfile is modified, supported formats, or output behavior beyond what the schema already describes. This lack of additional context reduces transparency.
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 a single, direct sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It is efficiently front-loaded with no redundant words or filler, making it highly scannable.
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 straightforward export utility with a well-documented schema and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits context about which lockfile is used (e.g., uv.lock) and valid formats beyond the default, leaving some ambiguity in broader workflows.
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?
All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the tool description adds no new parameter semantics. The schema already explains each parameter's purpose and defaults, aligning with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 a specific verb 'Export' and clearly identifies the source ('project lockfile') and destination ('requirements format'), making the tool's objective unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pip_freeze or pip_compile, which have different inputs and outputs.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pip_freeze or pip_compile. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and purpose.
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?
Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of environment effects, reversibility, or error outcomes. It simply restates the 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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential function without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted words.
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 simple tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify the default target virtual environment (venv_path optional) or differentiate from similar tools like 'remove', leaving some ambiguity in context.
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 input schema describes both parameters (package_name and venv_path) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema already carries the full documentation, the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (uninstall), the object (a package), and the method (using uv pip). This is specific enough to distinguish it from pip_install and other pip subcommands, satisfying the verb+resource+mechanism criterion.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pip_install, remove, or pip_sync. It lacks any context about prerequisites, target environment selection, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
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?
Annotations include destructiveHint: true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not specify what destructiveness occurs (e.g., overwriting existing package versions), whether authentication is required, or any other side effects. The description contributes minimal value beyond the annotation.
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 a single, concise sentence that starts with the action verb. It contains no unnecessary words or redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 tool has a full schema, annotations, and an output schema, so the minimal description is acceptable. However, it lacks context about the publishing process, such as whether a prior build is required or what 'configured package index' entails. This could leave an agent uncertain about prerequisites.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. The schema already documents 'token' and 'project_path' clearly, so no deduction is 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 ('Publish'), the resource ('project distributions'), and the target ('configured package index'). This is distinct from sibling tools like 'build' or 'run', and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., building first), exclusions, or compare with any sibling tool. The only implied usage is from the verb 'Publish', but no explicit context or alternatives are given.
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?
The destructiveHint annotation already signals destructive behavior, and the description's 'recreate' aligns with that. It adds the behavior of synchronization, providing some extra context, but does not disclose what gets removed, which files are used for syncing, or any other side effects.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Recreate', and contains no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to the core meaning.
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 has one optional parameter, destructive annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the term 'synchronize' is ambiguous and does not specify whether it syncs with a requirements file, lock file, or something else, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'project_path' ('Optional project directory.'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 recreates a project's virtual environment and synchronizes it, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_virtualenv' and 'sync' by implying a full rebuild, though the exact meaning of 'synchronize' 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'pip_sync' or 'self_heal'. No mention of prerequisites, scenarios, 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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential side effects such as downloading dependencies, creating temporary environments, or executing arbitrary code. The description only says 'Run a PEP 723 script with uv', which is a high-level action but omits any behavioral details that could be important for an agent to assess before invoking it.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It is easy to parse and contains no filler, making it ideal for quick agent comprehension.
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 tool has a single parameter and an output schema, which reduces the need for the description to explain return values. However, the description is too sparse for a script execution tool—it does not convey important context such as whether the script runs in an isolated environment, if it requires network access, or what happens on failure. This makes the tool moderately complete, but with noticeable gaps in behavioral context.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'script_path', which is described as 'Path to the script.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, but since the schema already fully documents the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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: running a PEP 723 script with uv. It uses a specific verb ('Run'), identifies the resource ('PEP 723 script'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'run' or 'run_tool' by emphasizing the 'with uv' aspect. This makes it easy to understand what the tool does.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does without mentioning any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'run' or 'run_tool'. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and description, which is minimal.
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?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not disclose that this replaces the current executable, may require elevated permissions, or that omitting target_version installs the latest version. The annotation already signals destructive potential, but this is minimal.
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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, making it efficiently scannable.
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 tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about default behavior (e.g., updating to latest) and the irreversible nature of replacing the executable. The schema and annotation fill some gaps, but the description could be more complete.
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 does not mention target_version, but the input schema provides a clear description ('Optional version to install.') with 100% coverage. The baseline of 3 applies since no extra semantics are added by the description.
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 'Update the uv executable' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like self_version (which likely shows the version) and tool_upgrade (which updates other tools). The phrase 'uv executable' pinpoints the target.
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. It does not mention 'use this for updating uv itself' or exclude cases like upgrading other tools, nor does it explain the optional target_version behavior.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the tool fetches advisory data from the network or updates its cache, especially given the 'offline' parameter exists.
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 concise sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the core function without clutter.
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 tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, the description lacks any usage context or relationship to sibling tools, and the presence of several parameters like ignore and offline is not reflected in the description, leaving some gaps in completeness.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description itself adds no parameter detail, which meets the baseline expected when the schema is complete.
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 audits installed uv tools for known vulnerabilities, using a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('installed uv tools'). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'audit' tool by focusing on uv tools rather than project dependencies.
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 such as the sibling 'audit' tool. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds context about what is inspected (metadata, lockfile, environment), but it does not disclose return format, depth of analysis, or any non-obvious behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It states the verb and the subjects clearly, making it 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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter, good annotations (read-only, idempotent), and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It could mention when to use it (covered under usage guidelines), but overall it gives enough context for selection and invocation.
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 100% for the single parameter project_path, and the description does not add extra parameter detail. The description mentions the project concept but not the parameter directly, so it neither improves nor hurts parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 'diagnose' and names the resources: metadata, lockfile, and environment consistency. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like repair_environment (which fixes) and compare_environments (which compares), though it does not explicitly differentiate from 'audit'.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like repair_environment, check_installation, or compare_environments. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected.
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 discloses the 'ephemeral Ruff installation' trait, which implies temporary installation, but omits that the tool likely modifies files in place, requires network access for installation, or performs cleanup. This is a significant gap for a tool with side effects.
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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No filler or redundant content exists.
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?
While the task is simple and an output schema exists, the description fails to disclose important behavioral context such as in-place file mutation and the implications of the ephemeral installation (network, disk usage, cleanup). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient for safe and correct use.
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 100%, with the schema fully documenting the 'path' parameter and its default. The description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline 3 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 a specific verb ('Format') and clearly identifies both the resource ('Python code') and the method ('with an ephemeral Ruff installation'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on package management, environment setup, and running scripts.
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 purpose implies when to use the tool (formatting Python code), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or any mention of alternative tools. Sibling tools like 'run' or 'run_script' could potentially format code via commands, but no such relationship is stated.
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?
The annotation provides idempotentHint, and the description adds that this is an update operation, implying a mutation. No further behavioral context (e.g., files affected, network requirements) is given, but the annotation covers some safety profile without contradiction.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the essential action and target efficiently.
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 tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks context about when to use it relative to siblings and any side effects beyond updating, leaving some ambiguity in broader workflows.
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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially fully covered. The description need not add parameter details, and no documentation gap exists for parameters.
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 updates the project's lockfile, using a specific verb and resource. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like pip_compile or sync, which may also affect lockfiles, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or preferred context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and short description.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, clearly indicating a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds the output format 'requirements syntax' but does not elaborate on behavior regarding `venv_path` or environment interactions. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 a single sentence that is grammatically direct, front-loads the verb, and contains zero unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and well-structured.
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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient. However, it omits mention of default environment behavior when `venv_path` is not provided and does not clarify its relationship to the sibling `export_requirements`, leaving minor gaps.
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 input schema contains one parameter `venv_path` with a full description ('Optional target virtual environment'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter details, but none are needed since the schema already fully documents the parameter.
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 'Freeze' with a clear resource 'installed packages' and output 'requirements syntax,' making the primary action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool `export_requirements`, which serves a similar purpose.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `export_requirements` or `pip_list`. It only states what the tool does, with no contextual usage directions 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the important 'uv-managed' scope, which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose behavior such as error cases or whether the output is a single path or list. With annotations covering the core behavior, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a single sentence of six words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundant or filler content.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema present, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks any guidance on when to use it relative to sibling tools, which is a minor gap given the abundance of similar Python-related tools. Overall, it is complete enough for basic selection and invocation.
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 input schema covers the only parameter 'which' with a description of possible values ('default' or 'bin'). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add extra detail, but it also does not enrich the meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.
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 ('Show') and a resource ('uv-managed Python directory'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on installing, listing, or upgrading Python. However, the term 'directory' is somewhat vague without explicitly stating it returns a path, so it is clear but not fully elaborative.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as python_list or python_find. There are no usage scenarios, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools, leaving the agent without clear decision-making information.
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 responsibility for disclosure. It reveals that installation occurs but does not mention side effects, permissions, download behavior, or impact on the current environment. For a mutating operation, this is a significant transparency gap.
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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and appropriate for a simple install command.
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?
Despite minimal behavioral disclosure, the one-parameter schema is fully covered and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. The phrase 'managed Python version' gives enough context for this use case, though more detail on side effects would improve completeness.
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 coverage is 100% for the single 'version' parameter, which is already described as 'Python version request.' The description adds 'managed' but does not clarify version format, accepted values, or default behavior, so it adds minimal 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 uses a clear verb ('Install') and specific resource ('managed Python version'), making the tool's primary function obvious. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like python_upgrade or tool_install, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
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 managed Python version is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as python_upgrade or python_pin. There is no stated context or exclusion criteria.
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 the full burden. It discloses that it searches cached documentation, but does not clarify whether it is read-only, may update the cache, or requires specific preconditions. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond 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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words, every part earns its place.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks some context about caching behavior, but this is not critical for correct invocation.
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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter 'query' with a description 'Search query.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'search' and resource 'cached UV documentation,' clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cache_size or update_cache by focusing on documentation lookup.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No scenarios, exclusions, or mentions of when to prefer this over other methods like online documentation. The usage 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation already marks the tool as destructive, and the description's 'reinstall-first strategy' adds behavioral context beyond the annotation by revealing the approach. However, it does not disclose specifics such as what gets reinstalled, whether existing data is preserved, or any side effects.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and strategy without waste. It is appropriately concise for a tool with one optional parameter.
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 the low complexity (one optional parameter, destructiveHint annotation, and output schema present), the description provides sufficient context for the tool's core purpose. It does not explain the repair process in depth, but for this simplicity level, the essential information is present.
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 input schema documents the single optional parameter 'project_path' with a clear description, so the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but it does not need to since the schema already handles it.
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 states a specific action ('Repair an environment') and adds the 'reinstall-first strategy' detail, making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'repair_environment', which appears to have a similar purpose.
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 such as 'diagnose_environment' or 'repair_environment'. The strategy hint ('reinstall-first') implies a use case, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level action without revealing side effects (e.g., system-wide modification, network access, possibility of overwriting existing versions), which is important for a mutating tool.
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 a single sentence with no redundant wording, and it front-loads the core action. While it is concise, it may be slightly too minimal, but it remains well-structured and easy to parse.
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 is minimally complete: it states the purpose, and parameter details are fully covered by the schema, and an output schema exists. However, it lacks behavioral side effects and usage guidance, which would help an agent use it correctly, resulting in a mid-range score.
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 100% and each parameter already has a clear description (package name, optional version, optional Python interpreter). The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 ('Install') and the target resource ('a package as a globally available uv tool'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pip_install or add. The phrase 'globally available uv tool' provides specific scope and intent.
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?
Usage context is implied through the phrase 'globally available uv tool', suggesting this is for installing CLI tools rather than project dependencies. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no naming of alternative 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?
Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it specifies the output is a path, but does not describe behavior like searching PATH, handling not-found cases, or returning multiple matches. This aligns with the baseline where annotations carry the burden and the description adds some but not rich 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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place. This is an ideal level of conciseness for 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 simple tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any mention of usage scenarios or how it relates to sibling tools (e.g., python_list vs python_find). It is adequate but has clear gaps in contextual guidance, preventing a higher score.
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 100%, with the parameter 'request' documented as 'Optional Python version request.' The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline score of 3 applies, and the description provides no additional semantic value.
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 function: 'Find the path of a Python interpreter.' This is a specific verb+resource (find + path of Python interpreter) that distinguishes it from siblings like python_list and python_install. It is not a tautology and precisely communicates the tool's purpose.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to choose python_find over python_list, python_dir, or other Python-related tools. There are no context clues, exclusions, or alternative references, leaving the agent without decision support.
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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the use of `uv version` but does not disclose side effects such as modifying project files, whether it's reversible, or prerequisites. The `dry_run` parameter is not explained in the description, leaving the agent to infer that the tool writes changes without it.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action. It is concise and contains no fluff, though the implementation detail `uv version` could be considered optional. Overall, it is appropriately sized.
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, all parameters are optional and well-documented in the schema, and an output schema exists. The description adequately states the purpose, and while it lacks behavioral context such as side effects, the schema richness compensates. The description is sufficient for selection and invocation, though not exceptional.
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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond naming the underlying `uv version` command, so it does not improve on the 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 action ('Bump') and the resource ('a project's version'), and the reference to ``uv version`` identifies the mechanism. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `self_version` which would refer to the tool's own version, not the project's.
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 the usage scenario (when you want to bump a project's version) but provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use guidance. It is a straightforward statement of purpose without contextual guidance.
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?
The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds context that clearing can be scoped to a package, which is useful, but it does not disclose irreversible effects, permission requirements, or possible side effects beyond the annotation.
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, well-structured sentence with no filler. The key information—action, scope, optional package filtering—is front-loaded and immediately understandable.
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 the simple one-parameter schema, the destructive annotation, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It lacks any mention of return values or edge cases, but these are not critical for such a straightforward operation.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage with an 'Optional package to target' description. The tool description adds little beyond confirming package-scoped clearing, so it meets the baseline without significantly enriching parameter understanding.
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 identifies the tool's action ('Clear') and resource ('cache entries'), and specifies the optional scope ('all' vs 'associated with a package'). This distinguishes it from siblings like cache_size or cache_dir by focusing on the clearing behavior.
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 such as cache_prune or update_cache. It does not mention situations where package-specific clearing is preferable, nor does it exclude cases where all cache should be retained.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the core behavior ('display') but does not go beyond that. It does not mention output format, how the tree is computed, or any potential side effects, though for a read-only tool this is acceptable. With annotations present, the description offers minimal additional 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose. There is no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it an excellent example of concise writing.
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, has a fully described input schema, annotations for safety, and an output schema (not shown but referenced in context). The description is sufficient for a basic display tool, though it could optionally mention that it operates on the current project directory or respects lockfiles. Given the structured metadata, the description is complete enough for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.
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 100%: both 'depth' and 'project_path' have descriptions in the schema. The description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning, but it is not required given the schema's completeness. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 'Display the project's dependency tree' uses a specific verb ('Display') and a clear resource ('dependency tree'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pip_list or pip_freeze, which focus on packages rather than the dependency tree structure.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or related tools such as pip_list or pip_freeze. For example, a user might benefit from knowing whether this is the right choice for inspecting installed dependencies versus the project's declared dependency tree.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the implementation detail 'using the standard library' but discloses nothing else about behavior (e.g., error handling, return format). This is acceptable for a simple read tool given the annotations.
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 one concise sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the action and target, making it easy to parse and understand.
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?
For a simple read tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential purpose. It lacks usage guidance, but the tool is straightforward enough that the information provided is nearly complete.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter project_path, describing it as a directory or direct path to pyproject.toml. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource: 'a project's pyproject.toml'. This unambiguously states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings that modify or install packages.
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. With many sibling tools related to project management and dependencies, the description lacks any context for selection 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?
The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), but adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. It does not disclose details such as whether the output includes versions or defaults to the current environment, but the annotations cover the safety profile.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is highly concise and conveys the core purpose immediately.
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 the tool's simplicity, the description, combined with the output schema and annotations, is nearly complete. It lacks explicit clarification of default behavior when 'venv_path' is omitted, but the parameter description implies it, and the output schema covers return values.
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 100%, and the parameter 'venv_path' has a clear description ('Optional target virtual environment'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides adequate meaning.
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 ('List') and the resource ('packages installed by uv pip'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like pip_install or pip_uninstall. It fully identifies the tool's function.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pip_freeze or dependency_tree. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage only from the name.
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?
The destructiveHint annotation already signals destructive behavior, and the description adds the qualifier 'managed' to clarify scope. However, it does not disclose other potential effects (e.g., impact on virtual environments) beyond what the annotation provides.
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 a single, complete sentence with no filler or repetition, making it optimally concise.
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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, destructive annotation, output schema present), the description covers the core action adequately. It is slightly incomplete due to missing usage context, but annotations and schema fill the gaps.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter 'version' has a description. The tool description adds little semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 'Uninstall a managed Python version' uses a specific verb (Uninstall) and resource (managed Python version), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like pip_uninstall (for packages) and python_install (for installing).
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. With siblings like python_install and pip_uninstall, the description offers no context for when removal of a managed Python version is appropriate or required.
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?
The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals destructive behavior, and the description aligns with that. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context, such as irreversibility, side effects on dependencies, or confirmation requirements. It simply restates the action implied by the tool's name.
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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant words. It immediately communicates the action and target, making it highly concise and effectively front-loaded.
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?
For a simple uninstall tool with one parameter, an output schema, and a destructive annotation, the description adequately covers the essential context: it operates on globally installed uv tools. It doesn't discuss return values, but that is handled by the output schema. The lack of explicit contrast with pip_uninstall is a minor gap, but the 'uv tool' qualifier provides sufficient distinction.
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 schema provides 100% coverage of the 'name' parameter with the description 'Tool name.' The tool description adds no further detail or example about the parameter, so it does not improve upon the schema's existing documentation.
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 'Uninstall a globally installed uv tool,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from pip_uninstall by specifying 'uv tool' and 'globally installed,' making the purpose unambiguous.
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 uninstalling globally installed uv tools, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this over alternatives like pip_uninstall or mention any prerequisites. The guidance is inferred from the phrase 'uv tool' rather than stated directly.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows the operation is safe. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., comparison scope, output format, or edge cases), but nothing contradicts the annotations.
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 a single, clear sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.
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 the simplicity of the tool (two string parameters, output schema present, annotations indicating read-only and idempotent behavior), the description is sufficiently complete. It could mention what comparison criteria are used (e.g., versions vs. names), but this is a minor gap.
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 input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptions for both env1 and env2. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already provided in the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Compare') and clearly identifies the resource ('installed packages between two virtual environments'). No sibling tool appears to offer environment comparison, so it is well-differentiated.
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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and the set of 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?
The destructiveHint annotation already signals destructive behavior, and the description aligns with it by stating 'Remove'. The added 'from the current project' provides useful context about scope. However, the description does not disclose specific side effects (e.g., modifying manifest files, updating lock files) beyond what annotations already indicate, so the value-add is minimal.
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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently captures the tool's purpose without redundancy.
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?
For a single-parameter mutation tool with destructiveHint and an output schema present, this description is adequate. It explains the core action and scope. It could be slightly more complete by specifying what files are affected, but the simplicity of the tool does not demand more.
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 input schema fully documents the only parameter, package_name, with a description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description need not repeat or elaborate on parameters. The baseline of 3 applies because no additional semantic nuance is offered beyond the 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 action ('Remove') and the target resource ('a dependency from the current project'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add' (which adds dependencies) and 'pip_uninstall' (which removes packages from the environment rather than the project context).
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 mentions 'current project' which implies project-scoped dependency removal, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pip_uninstall. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the usage context only implied.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description's 'Return' is consistent. The description adds the output content (directory and size) but does not disclose any additional behavior such as potential cost of size computation or absence of the cache directory.
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 filler, directly states the action and result. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a read-only query with no parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and return. No further context is necessary.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description appropriately omits parameter details.
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 verb 'Return' and specifies the exact resource ('uv's cache directory') and the measurement ('size in bytes'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling mutations like cache_clean and cache_prune.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cache_dir or cache_clean. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer use cases.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and repeatability. The description adds that it reports a version, but no additional behavioral details (e.g., exit codes, network usage, side effects) are given. With annotations present, the description doesn't contradict them and provides minimal useful context, but doesn't go beyond what a straightforward 'check' implies.
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 a single, complete sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's action and result, making it appropriately concise.
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?
For a tool with no parameters, an output schema present, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It states the purpose and the expected output (version), and the structured data covers the rest. There are no missing elements for such 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?
There are zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. The baseline for no parameters is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist; it correctly leaves parameter semantics out.
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 function: checking whether uv is installed and reporting its version. The verb 'check' plus resource 'uv' and output 'version' make it unambiguous. It differentiates from siblings like self_version (which likely reports this tool's own version) by specifying 'uv'.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or contrast with sibling tools such as self_version or diagnose_environment. For a simple check tool, some context about when to invoke it (e.g., before running uv commands) would be helpful.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, establishing it as a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether the directory is guaranteed to exist, output format), but for a trivial getter this is acceptable. No contradiction with annotations.
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, perfectly sized for a parameterless getter. No wasted words; the description delivers the essential information in a front-loaded manner.
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 the tool's trivial complexity (no parameters, simple read operation), the description is complete. The output schema exists to define return values, and annotations cover safety. Nothing else is needed for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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?
There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline of 4 is appropriate; no lack of parameter documentation exists to penalize.
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 action ('Return') and the resource ('uv's cache directory'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cache_size (returns size) and cache_clean/cache_prune (mutating operations). The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.
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?
No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The usage is implied by the simple read-only nature: use when you need the cache directory path. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so the guidance is minimal.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scoping detail 'known to uv', which is useful context, but does not describe output format or other behavioral details. This is acceptable given the annotations and output schema.
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 a single, clear sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains no fluff or redundant information, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
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?
For a simple, parameterless, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is fully complete. It states what is listed and the scope ('known to uv'), leaving no necessary context missing.
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 0 parameters, and with schema coverage at 100% (an empty schema), there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description meets that baseline without needing further explanation.
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' with the resource 'Python installations known to uv', clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like python_find and python_install by specifying 'known to uv' and the listing action.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the name and description, but there is no mention of when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling like python_find or python_pin.
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 carries the burden. It discloses the behavior around the optional parameter (all tools when no name is given), but does not mention side effects of upgrading, such as network access, version replacement, or potential breaking changes. This is adequate but minimal.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and clearly states the two modes. It contains no wasted words and is easy to parse.
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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides enough information about the core behavior. It lacks details on what 'upgrade' does exactly (e.g., source, side effects), but given the simplicity and existing output schema, it is fairly complete.
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 already describes 'name' as 'Optional tool name' (100% coverage), but the description adds crucial semantics: omitting the name triggers an upgrade of all tools. This goes beyond the schema's literal wording and helps the agent understand the default behavior.
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 ('upgrade') and the resource ('uv tool'), with explicit scope: either one named tool or all tools. This distinguishes it from siblings like tool_install, tool_list, and tool_uninstall, and also from self_update or python_upgrade.
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 gives clear guidance on the two usage modes: specify a name to upgrade one tool, or omit it to upgrade all. This is useful contexts, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.
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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds no additional behavioral context. It correctly describes a read operation, but does not disclose anything beyond what annotations provide. Since there is no contradiction, a baseline score is appropriate.
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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 the zero-parameter input, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is fully complete. There is no missing information that would hinder correct invocation or interpretation.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the schema is fully clear with no properties.
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 a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('installed uv version'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like self_update or check_installation. It is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
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?
While there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool vs alternatives, the purpose is so self-evident that usage context is clear. No sibling tool serves the same function, so the lack of exclusions is acceptable.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context by specifying that instructions are platform-specific and tailored to the current operating system, which supplements the annotation-provided safety profile without contradicting it.
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, using only two short lines to convey purpose and return value. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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?
This is a simple tool with no parameters, existing output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description fully clarifies what the tool returns (platform-specific instructions for the current OS), making it complete for its low complexity.
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 zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 function: returning platform-specific installation instructions for uv. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('installation instructions for uv'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_installation or diagnose_environment.
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 usage context is clear: use this when you need instructions for installing uv on the current OS. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is so well-defined that a user can easily infer appropriate usage.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'globally installed' scoping constraint, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and direct object. Every word contributes to meaning, with no 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?
Given the tool's simplicity, existing annotations, and output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context. It clearly identifies the subject and scope, and the output schema will define the return values.
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 zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% of the (empty) parameter set. Therefore, the description is not required to elaborate on parameters.
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 ('List') and the resource ('globally installed uv tools'), making it distinct from sibling tools like pip_list or python_list. It fully specifies the scope, so the agent knows exactly what is returned.
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 when to use this tool: to see what uv tools are installed globally. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use pip_list for pip packages.' This is acceptable for a simple list tool, so it gets a 4.
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:

[![uv-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yriveiro/uv-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yriveiro/uv-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![uv-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yriveiro/uv-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yriveiro/uv-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/yriveiro/uv-mcp'

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