Brawler MCP Server (Python)

Echo

echo

Returns the provided text unchanged to the model, enabling input verification and response testing within MCP workflows.

Instructions

Echo the given text back to the model.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "echo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does convey that the operation is a pure passthrough returning the input, but it doesn't state that it is side-effect-free, idempotent, or what the response envelope 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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and action, with zero filler.

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?

For a single-parameter passthrough tool with an output schema already declaring the return shape, the description says everything an agent needs. Only explicit side-effect/purity assurance is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'text' parameter, but the description's phrase 'the given text' maps directly onto it and the type is a plain string, leaving little room for misinterpretation.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Echo the given text') plus the direction ('back to the model'), so the agent can predict exactly what the call does. No sibling differentiation is needed since none of the sibling tools overlap with echoing text.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not statement, but for a trivial utility the implied usage (pass text, get it back) is unambiguous and no alternative tool competes with it.

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

Deploy Server