Brawler MCP Server (Python)

Train

train

Define agent behavior and execution paths using training tags. This identifies tasks requiring specific developmental focus for MCP clients.

Instructions

Training-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": "train"
  }
}

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

C2.4/5.0

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 disclosure burden, and it says nothing about side effects, whether this is a read or write, permissions, or expected behavior on success/failure. The only behavioral remark concerns external task classification, not what invoking the tool does.

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 a single short sentence with no padding, so size is fine. However, the space is spent on tag/routing metadata rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose, so brevity does not translate into usefulness.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the structured data is thin and the description must explain what the tool actually does — which it never does. An agent reading this cannot decide whether to invoke 'train' or a sibling like tagged_eval or route.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter meaning is missing or contradicted.

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 phrase "Training-tagged tool" essentially restates the name and tag rather than naming a verb and resource, so an agent cannot tell what operation 'train' performs. The second clause describes how an external router ('Brawler') classifies unsupported tasks, which is harness metadata, not the tool's function.

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 call this tool, when not to, or which of the many siblings (e.g. tagged_eval, route, score_length) it replaces. The note that unsupported tasks are treated as 'none' hints at routing behavior but gives no actionable selection guidance.

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

Deploy Server