Brawler MCP Server (Python)

Tagged Eval

tagged_eval

Evaluates submitted answers through FastMCP tag-based checks instead of mcp_server.task, supporting evaluation workflows in the Brawler MCP Server.

Instructions

Evaluation via FastMCP tags only (no mcp_server.task).

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": "tagged_eval"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`answer`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

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 discloses an implementation path ('via FastMCP tags only') but says nothing about side effects, permissions, read-only status, or how evaluation is performed, leaving important behavior undocumented.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted wording, and the key mechanism is front-loaded. Its brevity is efficient, though the content remains cryptic due to missing context.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so return-value explanation is not required. Still, the description leaves essential context unexplained: what FastMCP tags mean in this context, how the answer is used, and how this differs from related evaluation tools.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, 'answer', with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention 'answer' or clarify whether it is the text being evaluated, the expected answer, or another input, so it adds almost no semantic value beyond the schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states that this is an evaluation tool that operates 'via FastMCP tags only' and excludes 'mcp_server.task', which gives some implementation context. However, it does not clearly state what is being evaluated or what the 'answer' represents, so the purpose remains vague compared with siblings such as broken_eval or valid_no_score.

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?

The only usage signal is the parenthetical condition 'no mcp_server.task', which hints at a constraint but does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives. No sibling tools or scenarios are named as alternatives.

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

Deploy Server