Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pyobfus-mcp

pyobfus-mcp

by zhurong2020
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

recommend_tier

Analyze a Python project to recommend a pyobfus tier (community vs Pro) using a preflight scan and sensitive-string-literal heuristic. Returns actionable next steps for both free and paid options.

Instructions

Analyze a Python project and recommend pyobfus tier (community vs Pro) with reasons. Combines a preflight scan with a sensitive-string-literal heuristic. Returns free_action and pro_action with concrete next-step commands.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "recommend_tier"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses it combines a preflight scan with a sensitive-string-literal heuristic and returns concrete actions. No annotations exist, so description carries the burden; it could mention if it modifies anything or prerequisites.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, method, and output. Efficient but could be more 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?

Covers purpose, method, and output types (free_action, pro_action), but lacks usage guidelines and parameter details. Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The sole parameter 'path' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description only implies it's the project path without explicit semantics or format details.

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?

Clearly states it analyzes a Python project and recommends a tier (community vs Pro) with reasons, using a heuristic. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like check_obfuscation_risks.

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?

Implies usage when a tier recommendation is needed, but no explicit when-not or alternatives to sibling tools are provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools