Brawler MCP Server (Python)

Boom

boom

Trigger intentional failures to observe how the system handles swallowed errors. This context utility allows clients to diagnose and verify error handling behaviors.

Instructions

Context tool that fails so the client can observe a swallowed error.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "boom"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical trait: the call will fail intentionally, and the error is swallowed rather than surfaced. That is the key thing an agent must know to avoid misinterpreting a failure as a real fault. It stops short of saying what the error payload or response looks like.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence with no waste, and the most important fact (it fails) is front-loaded before the rationale. Perfectly sized for a zero-parameter test tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and there are no parameters to document. The description covers the one non-obvious behavior. It would be stronger if it noted how the failure manifests (e.g., silent vs. thrown) now that the error is described as 'swallowed'.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline is 4. The absence of any parameter discussion is appropriate here.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description does state the core outcome — the tool fails deliberately so the client can observe a swallowed error — which is a specific, unusual behavior. However, the framing 'Context tool' is vague and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling `fail`, which presumably has a similar purpose. An agent can tell it apart from read/list/write siblings but not from its closest analogue.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'so the client can observe a swallowed error' implies a testing/error-handling scenario, which hints at when to reach for it. But there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus `fail` or the other error-oriented siblings, and no exclusion guidance.

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

Deploy Server