Security + bug + perf + refactor audit for Python. Returns 0-10 score + MD report.
Review Python code and output a structured report: security vulnerabilities, bug detection, performance optimization suggestions, code standards, and refactoring advice.
Args:
code: The Python code to review
depth: Review depth (quick/standard/deep)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| depth | No | standard |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 output categories but fails to mention behavioral traits such as expected execution time for different depths, whether it is a read-only operation, or if any external calls are made. For a tool that could be expensive (deep review), this is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise—two sentences plus an argument list. It front-loads the tool's purpose and output categories. The argument section is efficient but adds needed detail since the schema lacks descriptions. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (code review) and the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it omits details like output format (JSON, markdown), behavior on invalid code, and any limitations. Compared to the sibling, it lacks context for choosing between tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 explains 'code' as 'The Python code to review' and 'depth' as 'Review depth (quick/standard/deep)', which adds value over the raw schema. However, it does not specify the expected format of the code string (e.g., snippet, file path) or elaborate on what 'quick/standard/deep' entails.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool reviews Python code and produces a structured report covering security, bugs, performance, standards, and refactoring. The verb and resource are specific, and the sibling tool python_quality_score implies a different scope, but explicit differentiation is absent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like python_quality_score, nor any conditions such as code size limits or required dependencies. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return only the code quality score and brief rating, without a full report.
Args:
code: The Python code to score
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 output is a 'score and brief rating' but does not detail what the rating categories are, whether the tool is read-only, or any error behaviors. This is adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of a single sentence plus an Args section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured, e.g., by separating behavioral notes from parameter docs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 1 parameter, no annotations, an output schema (though not detailed in context), and a sibling 'python_code_review', the description is minimally complete: it states what it returns and what the parameter is. However, it lacks guidance on output format/range and when to use the sibling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes the 'code' parameter as 'The Python code to score', which adds slight context beyond the schema's type definition but does not explain expected format, size limits, or encoding. The baseline for 0% coverage and 1 param is 4, but the added value is minimal, so 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'the code quality score and brief rating' for a given Python code input. The verb 'Return' and resource 'code quality score' are specific, and the tool distinguishes itself from the sibling 'python_code_review' by omitting a full report.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly suggests this tool is for obtaining a quick score without a full report, which contrasts with typical code review tools. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus the sibling 'python_code_review', nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
python_code_reviewpython_quality_scoreClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Audit and repair any public GitHub repo. Free survey; paid source, unified diffs and a pull request.
Audit GitHub repos for malicious and supply-chain code before you depend on them.
Scan code for quantum-vulnerable cryptography and get NIST post-quantum migration guidance.
Risk-scan a diff, flag AI-generated-code tells, find secrets. 5 of 7 tools need no account.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: python_code_review provides a full structured report, while python_quality_score returns only a score and rating. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names use a consistent snake_case style with the `python_` prefix, and follow a verb_noun or [action]_[result] pattern (code_review, quality_score). The naming is predictable and uniform.
With only two tools, the server feels slightly thin for a code review domain. While the tools cover core needs, a typical server of this scope would benefit from 3-5 tools (e.g., separate linting or style checks). The count is borderline but not overly minimal.
The server covers a full review and a quick score, but lacks specialized tools for specific checks (e.g., security-only, formatting) or batch processing. The depth parameter in the review tool partially compensates, but the overall surface is limited to two operations, leaving some gaps in flexibility.