Brawler MCP Server (Python)

Record

record

Post a numeric value and query string to store structured data for later retrieval.

Instructions

Post tool with multiple input fields.

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": {
      "value": "<value>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`value`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

D1.5/5.0

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. It never states that this is a write/side-effecting operation, what permissions it needs, whether the record persists, or how failures behave; "post" hints at mutation but is left unexplained.

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 and front-loaded, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency — the single sentence conveys no usable information and 'multiple input fields' is also inaccurate for a two-field schema.

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?

With no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and two required parameters, the description needed to do heavy lifting and does none. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the inputs and side effects remain completely unexplained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions only generic "input fields," never naming `query` or `value`. The integer type of `value` and the meaning of `query` (what is being looked up or recorded) are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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?

"Post tool with multiple input fields" restates the name and the existence of a schema rather than saying what is recorded, to what destination, or for what purpose. The only signal is the verb "post," which is ambiguous across the 20 sibling tools (add, train, route, score_length, etc.). It is close to a tautology rather than a specific verb+resource.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. With 20 alternatives and no routing guidance, an agent has nothing to discriminate on beyond guessing from the name.

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

Deploy Server