Brawler MCP Server (Python)

Legacy Search

legacy_search

Executes a query-based search to retrieve matching legacy results for completion tasks.

Instructions

Untagged FastMCP tool; Brawler treats it as completion.

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": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "legacy_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

D1.1/5.0

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 of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing — no read/write semantics, side effects, auth needs, or result characteristics. The phrase 'treats it as completion' is opaque and could even mislead about what the tool returns.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

It is short, but the terseness comes from omission rather than compression — the one sentence conveys internal tooling trivia instead of the information an agent needs. Length is not the problem; content is.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Although an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), the description fails to establish purpose, usage, or the meaning of the sole required parameter. For a tool an agent must choose and call correctly, this is wholly inadequate.

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 single required parameter 'q' has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds no meaning whatsoever about what 'q' accepts (query string, id, pattern?). This is the clearest parameter-semantics gap possible.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description never states what the tool does. 'Untagged FastMCP tool; Brawler treats it as completion' is internal framework metadata, not a purpose statement, and only the tool name hints weakly at searching. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as tagged_eval or route.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer instead. The reference to 'Brawler' routing behavior describes an internal system, not an invocation condition an agent can act on.

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

Deploy Server