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 | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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.
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.