Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
consciousness-mcp-tools

consciousness-mcp-tools

by EmmanuelFortressAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

uef_analyze_decision

Analyze decisions against Universal Ethical Framework principles. Assess risks, stakeholders, and context to evaluate ethical alignment.

Instructions

Analyze decisions against Universal Ethical Framework principles

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "uef_analyze_decision"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
risksNoPotential risks and downsides
actionYesThe action or decision to analyze
contextNoContext and background information
stakeholdersNoList of stakeholders affected by the decision

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, output format, required permissions, or constraints. The agent cannot infer what happens when this tool is invoked.

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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but underinformative. It could be restructured to provide more value without adding much length.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It lacks essential information such as expected output, example usage, or required formatting. The agent is left with significant ambiguity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, meaning each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter information. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles semantics adequately.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool analyzes decisions against a known framework (Universal Ethical Framework). It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Analyze decisions') that distinguishes it from the sibling 'assess_alignment', though it doesn't elaborate on what analysis entails.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. The description does not provide context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer when analysis is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools