Brawler MCP Server (Python)

Audit

audit

Verifies that post-task tools are listed and invoked correctly after a task by acting as a no-op check.

Instructions

No-op post tool used to verify post-task listing and calls.

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": {
      "answer": "<answer>"
    },
    "name": "audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`answer`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. Saying 'no-op' usefully signals no side effects, but it says nothing about what the tool returns, whether it records anything, or what the required input is used for.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no padding, but the one clause it contains ('verify post-task listing and calls') is not self-explanatory, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a test/scaffold tool the description should clarify its mock nature, the role of 'answer', and what verification means here; it leaves all of that unresolved.

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?

There is one required string parameter 'answer' with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent has no idea what value to supply or how it relates to the 'no-op' behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description calls it a 'No-op post tool' but 'verify post-task listing and calls' is opaque – an agent cannot tell what listing or which calls are being verified. It also fails to distinguish this from the many other test/scaffold-looking siblings (ping, echo, tagged_eval, valid_no_score, record).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; 'used to verify post-task listing and calls' hints at a test context but never says what condition should make an agent pick this over echo, ping, or record.

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

Deploy Server