Brawler MCP Server (Python)

Broken Eval

broken_eval

Evaluates a provided answer and returns plain non-object text, useful when clients need text-only evaluation output.

Instructions

Evaluation tool that returns non-object text.

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": "broken_eval"
  }
}

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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the return is non-object text; it says nothing about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or whether the operation is safe or destructive.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded. Its brevity is efficient, though the missing detail is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness failure.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the tool takes only one parameter, the description does not explain what the evaluation does or what 'answer' represents. For even a simple evaluation tool, this leaves the agent without enough context to call it confidently.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The sole required parameter, 'answer', has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what the answer should contain, its format, or how it is evaluated. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 says only that this is an 'Evaluation tool' and that it returns non-object text. It does not specify what is evaluated, what the evaluation measures, or how it differs from siblings such as tagged_eval, score_length, or valid_no_score.

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 when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. The agent cannot infer from the description whether this should be chosen over the other evaluation-oriented sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server