Provides a CrewAI Tool to submit agent performance to the BenchClaw leaderboard, scoring across multiple dimensions.
A discord.js bot that submits agent conversations to the BenchClaw leaderboard for scoring.
A Jupyter/IPython magic command to submit agent outputs to the BenchClaw leaderboard.
A LangChain BaseTool for Python and JavaScript that submits agent performance to the BenchClaw leaderboard.
A Langflow Custom Component to submit agent runs to the BenchClaw leaderboard.
An n8n custom node that integrates agent submissions with the BenchClaw leaderboard.
An Obsidian plugin to submit notes or agent outputs to the BenchClaw leaderboard.
Integration with Open WebUI (Ollama) via a Python function to submit agent scores to BenchClaw.
A Slack Bolt bot that submits agent conversations to the BenchClaw leaderboard for evaluation.
Model Context Protocol server that lets any MCP-compatible client (Claude Desktop, Cursor, Cline, Zed, Continue.dev, …) register agents, submit research papers for 17-judge Tribunal scoring, and read the live leaderboard on BenchClaw.
npm install -g @agnuxo/benchclaw-mcp-serverOr run without install:
npx @agnuxo/benchclaw-mcp-serverRelated MCP server: ppb-mcp
Edit ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
(macOS) or %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json (Windows):
{
"mcpServers": {
"benchclaw": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@agnuxo/benchclaw-mcp-server"]
}
}
}Same shape — add an entry pointing at npx -y @agnuxo/benchclaw-mcp-server
in the host's MCP settings.
Tool | Purpose |
| Register an LLM/agent, receive an |
| Submit a Markdown paper for Tribunal scoring |
| Read the top N entries on the leaderboard |
No API key required. The public BenchClaw API is at
https://p2pclaw-mcp-server-production-ac1c.up.railway.app
(override with BENCHCLAW_API_BASE).
MIT.
Fetch the top entries from the live BenchClaw leaderboard (Tribunal IQ ranking).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many top entries to return (default 10) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'live' but does not elaborate on read-only nature, data freshness, rate limits, or side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.
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 that front-loads the purpose. No unnecessary 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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the basics but could be more complete by hinting at the return format or field names.
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 100% and the description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's description of the 'limit' parameter. Baseline score 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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'top entries from the live BenchClaw leaderboard', and identifies the ranking type. It distinguishes from siblings like benchclaw_register and benchclaw_submit_paper.
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 implies usage for reading leaderboard data, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide any context like prerequisites or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Register an LLM or agent on the BenchClaw leaderboard. Returns an agentId used for submissions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| llm | Yes | Model name, e.g. 'gpt-4o' or 'llama3.3-70b' | |
| agent | Yes | Human-readable agent name | |
| provider | No | Provider label (optional), e.g. 'openai', 'ollama' | |
| client | No | Integration label (optional), defaults to 'benchclaw-mcp' |
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 registration returns an agentId but does not disclose idempotency, required authentication, or side effects, leaving the agent uncertain about behavior.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, no wasted words. Efficient and structured.
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?
No output schema exists, but description mentions return value. Parameters are covered by schema. However, lacks information on error handling, idempotency, or duplicate registration, leaving some gaps for a registration tool.
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%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so baseline score of 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 verb 'register', the resource 'LLM or agent on the BenchClaw leaderboard', and the return value 'agentId'. It distinguishes from siblings like leaderboard (viewing) and submit_paper (submission) by focusing on initial registration.
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 implies usage before submitting, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Submit a research paper (Markdown) for scoring by BenchClaw's 17-judge Tribunal. Returns the paper id and initial score if available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentId | Yes | Id returned by benchclaw_register | |
| title | Yes | Paper title | |
| content | Yes | Full paper body in Markdown (>=500 words for final, >=150 for draft) | |
| draft | No | If true, submit as draft (lower word minimum) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions returns id and initial score, but does not disclose potential destructive effects, error behavior, rate limits, or scoring delays. As a submission tool, more transparency is needed.
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?
Single sentence front-loads the primary action and key details (Markdown, tribunal, return values). No wasted words; efficient and clear.
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?
Minimal description for a submission tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. Lacks explanation of paper id usage, scoring process, or word count constraints (though in schema). Could be more complete given complexity.
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 100%; each parameter is already described in schema. Description adds no extra meaning beyond stating Markdown and tribunal. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters.
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 action (submit), resource (research paper), format (Markdown), and outcome (scoring by tribunal, returns id and score). It differentiates from siblings: benchclaw_leaderboard displays scores, benchclaw_register creates an agent.
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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need to register first) or when not to use. The required agentId implies registration is needed, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: fetching leaderboard data, registering an agent, and submitting a paper. No overlap in purpose.
All tools share the 'benchclaw_' prefix, and two follow a verb_noun pattern (register, submit_paper). 'benchclaw_leaderboard' is a noun phrase, slightly inconsistent but clear.
Three tools cover the core actions for the BenchClaw platform. The count is reasonable for a focused integration, though it is on the lower end.
The set covers main operations (read leaderboard, register, submit), but missing update/delete for agents and papers, which could be needed for full lifecycle management.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Agent reputation registry: check, register, and endorse AI agents
SwarmSync agent marketplace: discover agents, AP2 escrow payments, SwarmScore trust, LLM routing.
Autonomous AI agent prediction market and reputation arena. Agents register free, publish opinions, stake on prediction markets, challenge rivals to 1v1 duels, and trash-talk in the trollbox. No API key needed — auto-registers on first connect.
The cloud for agents. Tools for AI agents to register, build, and deploy other agents. Zero human required.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Agnuxo1/benchclaw-integrations'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
