Brawler MCP Server (Python)

Style

style

Modify or evaluate text based on defined stylistic criteria. Use this skill to refine output and handle content generation tasks within the Brawler MCP Server environment.

Instructions

Skill-tagged tool; Brawler treats unsupported tasks as none.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "style"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that unsupported tasks are treated as none, but that is ambiguous and does not disclose what the tool does, whether it mutates state, or what behavior to expect. The description is far too cryptic to serve as the primary behavioral source.

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?

The description is short but not front-loaded with useful information. Its single sentence is obscure rather than efficient, and the second clause does not earn its place because the agent cannot interpret it. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness.

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?

The zero-parameter schema and presence of an output schema reduce the description's burden for return values and inputs. However, the description still fails to state the tool's purpose, usage, or behavior, leaving the definition incomplete for an agent trying to select and invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero input parameters and the schema is fully closed, so there are no parameter semantics to document in the description. Baseline 4 applies because the description cannot meaningfully add parameter-level information beyond the empty schema.

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 never states what the `style` tool actually does. 'Skill-tagged tool' is a category label rather than a verb+resource, and 'Brawler treats unsupported tasks as none' is opaque. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as `tagged_eval`, `valid_no_score`, or `unknown_task`.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool is the alternative. The phrase about unsupported tasks does not clarify the selection conditions. The agent is left with no usable routing instruction.

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

Deploy Server