Brawler MCP Server (Python)

Valid No Score

valid_no_score

Submit an answer for evaluation without a score field, letting the client apply its default score.

Instructions

Evaluation tool that omits score so the client can default it.

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": "valid_no_score"
  }
}

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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait: the tool omits `score` so the client can default it. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, what errors may occur, or what the output contains beyond the omitted field.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes either the tool category or the unusual score-omission behavior.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple, with one required parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, it omits the meaning of the `answer` parameter and gives no usage context. It is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent trying to invoke it confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required `answer` parameter. The description never mentions `answer` or explains what the evaluation input should be, though the word 'evaluation' loosely implies the answer is the item being evaluated. This is a significant gap for an undocumented parameter.

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 identifies the tool as an evaluation tool and highlights that it omits `score`, but it never states what is being evaluated or what kind of evaluation is performed. The purpose is inferable but vague, and it is not clearly differentiated from sibling evaluation tools such as `score_length`, `tagged_eval`, or `broken_eval`.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no conditions, exclusions, or sibling tool references, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name and sparse description.

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

Deploy Server