Execute JavaScript or Python code securely with comprehensive error handling and security measures
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Code to execute | |
| input | No | Input data for the program (stdin) | |
| timeout | No | Execution timeout in milliseconds (max 60000) | |
| language | Yes | Programming language to execute | |
| memoryLimit | No | Memory limit in MB (max 512) | |
| enableNetworking | No | Enable network access for this execution |
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'securely' and 'comprehensive error handling,' but lacks specifics about sandboxing, default network/memory restrictions, return formats, or error behavior. This is vague and insufficient for a code execution tool.
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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though some terms like 'comprehensively' are vague but do not detract significantly.
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?
Executing arbitrary code is high-risk and requires clear context. With no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters, the description should explain sandboxing, default behaviors, and error handling. It only provides generic claims, leaving major gaps for the agent to navigate safely.
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 100% across all 6 parameters, each with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('Execute') and resource ('JavaScript or Python code'), which is specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like python_execute or execute_code_with_variables, so it falls short of a 5.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no conditions or exclusions are mentioned. The description is purely functional, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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.
Several tools have overlapping or ambiguous purposes that could confuse an agent. For example, analyze_code, analyze_patterns, and analyze_design_patterns all involve code analysis with unclear boundaries, while check_deceptive_patterns and check_placeholders seem like subsets of analyze_code. The NPM tools form a coherent group but are distinct from the rest, creating a fragmented toolset.
Naming conventions are highly inconsistent across the toolset. Some tools use snake_case (e.g., analyze_code, execute_code), others use camelCase (e.g., npmAlternatives, npmChangelogAnalysis), and there are mixed styles like query-docs with hyphens. The NPM tools follow a consistent npmPrefix pattern internally, but this is not applied to other tools, leading to overall chaos.
With 39 tools, this server is overloaded for a 'DevTools Collection' scope. The count feels excessive, as many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple analysis tools) or logically grouped. While the NPM tools are numerous but focused, the overall set lacks cohesion, making it cumbersome for an agent to navigate and select appropriate tools efficiently.
The toolset covers a broad range of development tasks, including code analysis, execution, documentation, and package management, but there are notable gaps. For example, there is no tool for code generation or refactoring, and the Microsoft and NPM tools are well-covered but isolated from other functionalities. The surface is extensive but not fully integrated, with some dead ends in workflow transitions.