Brawler MCP Server (Python)

Grounded

grounded

Rejects empty answers to ensure only non-empty responses pass validation.

Instructions

Reject empty answers.

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": "grounded"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`answer`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`score`	Yes
`feedback`	Yes
`is_valid`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

D1.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and fails. It doesn't say whether 'reject' means throwing an error, returning a boolean, or emitting a structured rejection, nor what happens with a non-empty answer, nor any preconditions.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but at four words it is under-specified rather than efficient. Brevity is not earning its place here; it is the source of the ambiguity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still omits what the tool fundamentally does, its failure behavior, and the meaning of its only parameter. For an unannotated tool this is far from sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single 'answer' parameter, so the description must compensate and doesn't. It never clarifies whether 'answer' is the text to be validated, a reference answer to ground against, or something else — the most important ambiguity given the tool's name.

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?

"Reject empty answers" gestures at a verb (reject) and an object (empty answers) but never states what the tool actually does — is it a validator, a filter, a guardrail check, a scoring function? The name 'grounded' adds no clarity, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like 'valid_no_score' or 'score_length'.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is mentioned. With ~19 sibling tools including 'valid_no_score', 'broken_eval', and 'tagged_eval', an agent has no basis for choosing this one over another.

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

Deploy Server