MCP Python Interpreter

by yzfly

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between run_python_code and run_python_file that could cause confusion. The descriptions clarify that run_python_code handles code strings with multiple execution modes, while run_python_file executes existing files via subprocess, but both essentially execute Python code. Other tools like list_directory, read_file, and write_file are clearly distinct.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as clear_session, install_package, list_directory, etc. There are no deviations in naming conventions, making the set predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the count is well-scoped for a Python interpreter server. It covers key operations like code execution, file management, package installation, and session handling without being overwhelming or insufficient for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for Python development tasks, including code execution, file operations, package management, and session control. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for deleting files or uninstalling packages, but agents can work around these using existing tools like write_file with overwrite or other methods.
Average 3.3/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 1 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

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

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

How is the quality score calculated?

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

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

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

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

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool clears 'state and history,' implying a destructive operation, but doesn't specify whether this is irreversible, what 'state' includes (e.g., variables, outputs), or if it affects other sessions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first ('Clear a REPL session's state and history.') and parameter details following. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, but the 'Args' section could be more integrated. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.
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 complexity (destructive operation with one parameter), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic action and parameter, but lacks critical context like irreversible effects, session existence checks, or error handling. For a mutation tool, this is a moderate gap 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?
The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the input schema. It includes an 'Args' section listing 'session_id: Session ID to clear,' which provides basic meaning (identifying which session to clear). However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is adequate but not detailed (e.g., no format or default value explanation). The baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, but here it's 3 due to the single parameter being partially documented.
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 purpose with a specific verb ('clear') and resource ('a REPL session's state and history'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'list_sessions' or 'run_python_code' by focusing on cleanup rather than listing or execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., it's clear but not maximally specific about sibling relationships).
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 (e.g., whether a session must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for active sessions), or suggest alternatives among siblings like 'list_sessions' for checking sessions first. The tool's purpose is clear, but usage context is missing.
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 states it's a listing operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as output format, pagination, error handling, or whether it requires specific permissions. The description is minimal and lacks context 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool. However, it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation of sections.
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 an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low complexity, the description is somewhat complete but lacks context. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but doesn't provide usage guidelines or behavioral details, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that explains the 'environment' parameter as 'Name of the Python environment'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's title 'Environment' and default value 'default'. However, it doesn't provide additional details like valid environment names or examples, and there's only one parameter, so the baseline is 4, but the limited info reduces it to 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('installed packages'), and specifies the target ('for a specific Python environment'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_python_environments', which could be a related listing operation.
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 'list_python_environments' (which lists environments rather than packages) or 'list_directory' (which might list files). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('install') but lacks details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., modifies environment state), error handling (e.g., what happens if package not found), or output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 well-structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point list of parameters. Every sentence earns its place by directly explaining the tool or its inputs, with no redundant or vague language. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to scan.
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 complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, errors) and usage context. The presence of an output schema (not detailed here) might help with return values, but overall, it's adequate with clear gaps for safe tool 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 description lists all four parameters with brief explanations, but schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description adds basic semantics (e.g., 'Name of the package to install'), but it doesn't elaborate on constraints (e.g., package naming conventions) or dependencies (e.g., environment must be valid). This compensates partially but not fully for the schema gap.
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 purpose: 'Install a Python package in the specified environment.' It specifies the verb ('install') and resource ('Python package'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_installed_packages' or 'run_python_code', which would require more specific context about when to use installation versus other package-related operations.
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 (e.g., environment must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for system-wide installation), or comparisons to siblings like 'run_python_code' for testing packages. Without such context, an agent might misuse it in scenarios better handled by other 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'overwrite' behavior, which is useful, but fails to cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., if the file path is invalid or permissions are insufficient), side effects, or response format details.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, but the formatting could be slightly more polished for readability.
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 complexity (a write operation with 3 parameters) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well and an output schema exists, but it lacks behavioral context like error cases or system dependencies, leaving gaps for safe usage.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters ('file_path', 'content', 'overwrite') in the Args section, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could include more details like path format or content encoding.
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 purpose with 'Write content to a file', specifying the verb 'write' and resource 'file'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_file', though the action is distinct by nature.
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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as file permissions or system constraints, and doesn't mention sibling tools like 'read_file' for comparison.
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 states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what happens with invalid paths, whether it recursively searches subdirectories, what format the output takes (e.g., list of filenames, full paths), or any error conditions. The description is minimal and doesn't disclose important operational traits.
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 and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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 that there's an output schema (which presumably describes the return format), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations and only basic parameter documentation, the description is somewhat incomplete: it doesn't address error handling, recursion behavior, or file filtering details beyond 'Python files'. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.
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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it explains that directory_path is 'Path to directory (empty for working directory)', which clarifies the default behavior when the parameter is omitted. Since schema description coverage is 0% and there's only one parameter, this compensates well. However, it doesn't detail path format requirements (e.g., absolute vs. relative) or validation rules.
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 'List all Python files in a directory' which specifies the verb (list), resource (Python files), and scope (directory). It distinguishes from siblings like list_installed_packages or list_sessions by focusing specifically on Python files in a filesystem directory. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose list_directory over other file-related tools like read_file or run_python_file, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only contextual hint is the sibling list, but the description itself offers no usage instructions.
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 states what the tool does but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, what the output format looks like, or if there are any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with system environments.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly states the action and scope, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a tool that lists system-level resources with no annotations, it should ideally provide more context about output structure or usage constraints to be fully complete for an AI agent.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Python environments'), specifying both system Python and conda environments. It distinguishes from some siblings like list_directory or list_sessions by focusing on Python environments specifically, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or compare with siblings like list_installed_packages or list_sessions, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios independently.
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 states the tool lists active sessions but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires permissions, how it handles errors, what the output format is, or if there are rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and a simple purpose, it lacks context on usage scenarios or behavioral details, making it just sufficient but with clear gaps.
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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required, earning a baseline score above 3 for adequate coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all active REPL sessions'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'list_installed_packages' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
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 the execution method (subprocess) and mentions a default timeout, but doesn't cover critical behaviors like error handling (e.g., what happens if the file doesn't exist or execution fails), output capture (e.g., stdout/stderr return), security implications, or resource usage. This is inadequate for a tool that executes arbitrary code.
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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point-like Args section. Each sentence adds value, and there's no redundancy. However, the Args formatting could be more integrated, and it's slightly verbose for a tool with only 4 parameters.
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 complexity (executing arbitrary Python files), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters adequately but lacks behavioral details like error handling or security warnings. The output schema may help with return values, but the description doesn't reference it, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full impact.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for all 4 parameters: file_path specifies it's the 'Python file to execute,' environment indicates the 'Python environment to use,' arguments are 'command-line arguments to pass to the script,' and timeout defines 'maximum execution time in seconds' with a default. This goes beyond the schema's basic titles, though it could elaborate on format (e.g., path requirements).
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 purpose as 'Execute a Python file' with the specific implementation detail 'always uses subprocess for file execution.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_python_code (which executes code directly) and read_file (which only reads). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like install_package or list_directory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying it executes files via subprocess, suggesting it's for running complete Python scripts rather than inline code. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like run_python_code, and doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist) or exclusions (e.g., not for interactive scripts).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds context about 'size limits for safety', which is useful for understanding constraints, but it doesn't cover other behavioral traits such as error handling, permissions required, or what happens with large files beyond the limit. This leaves gaps in transparency.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly rather than as a separate 'Args' section, though this is minor.
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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and parameters, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks details on error cases or performance, which could enhance completeness for a file-reading tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'file_path' as 'Path to the file' and 'max_size_kb' as 'Maximum file size to read in KB', which clarifies the parameters beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't detail format specifics (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths) or default behavior, keeping it from a perfect score.
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 purpose as 'Read the content of any file' with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('file'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_directory' or 'run_python_file', which prevents a perfect score.
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 by mentioning 'size limits for safety', suggesting it's for reading files within safe bounds, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_directory' for file metadata or 'run_python_file' for executing code. No exclusions or clear alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: execution modes with their characteristics (speed, isolation, state persistence), timeout enforcement specifics, and session state maintenance. However, it doesn't mention security implications, error handling, or resource limits.
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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Execution modes) and front-loaded purpose. Most sentences earn their place by providing essential information, though the execution mode explanations could be slightly more 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 complexity (code execution with multiple modes), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers parameters, execution behavior, and usage guidelines well, though could benefit from mentioning security considerations or error scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all 6 parameters: explains what each parameter does, clarifies which parameters apply to which execution modes, and provides default values and constraints. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('Python code'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'run_python_file' (which executes files) and 'clear_session' (which manages sessions). It specifies flexible execution modes, making the scope explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use each execution mode: 'inline' for most tasks (fast, maintains state) and 'subprocess' for environment isolation or different Python environments. It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on code execution rather than file operations or session management.
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:

[![mcp-python-interpreter MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yzfly/mcp-python-interpreter/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yzfly/mcp-python-interpreter)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-python-interpreter MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yzfly/mcp-python-interpreter/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/yzfly/mcp-python-interpreter)

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/yzfly/mcp-python-interpreter'

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