General Decision MCP

jev_coding_loop

Read-only

Suggests a bounded coding-loop next step from supplied observations and execution facts; advisory only, it does not grant authorization or execute actions.

Instructions

Suggest a bounded coding-loop next step from supplied observations and execution facts. Advisory only; never grants authorization or executes actions.

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": {
      "task": "<task>",
      "observation": "<observation>",
      "evidence": "<evidence>"
    },
    "name": "jev_coding_loop"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task`	Yes
`scope`	No	Known consequence scope; omitted means unknown and requires human review.
`evidence`	Yes	Supplied text only; no files or URLs are fetched.
`execution`	No
`observation`	Yes
`evidence_complete`	No	Caller attests supplied evidence is complete; omitted means incomplete. Not independent verification.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	Yes
`error`	No
`model`	Yes
`usage`	Yes
`policy`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`answers`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`evidence`	Yes
`provider`	Yes
`schema_version`	Yes
`requested_model`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive status, but the description adds a genuinely new behavioral fact: the output is advisory and carries no authorization weight, which an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint alone. It does not explain why the tool is marked non-idempotent despite being a read-only suggestion endpoint, leaving one notable behavioral gap.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the action and its inputs, the second bounds the output's authority. The advisory constraint is placed prominently and nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema and annotations carry much of the burden, but for a tool with six parameters, nested objects, and a non-obvious 'coding-loop' concept, the description does not explain what a suggested next step looks like or how scope and evidence completeness shape the recommendation. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 50%, with scope, evidence, and evidence_complete documented in the schema while task, observation, and execution are not. The description names observations and execution facts, partially covering the undocumented parameters, but says nothing about task, scope values, or how evidence completeness affects the suggestion.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Suggest a bounded coding-loop next step from supplied observations and execution facts.' The 'advisory only; never grants authorization' clause implicitly separates it from decision/gate siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'from supplied observations and execution facts' implies what inputs are expected and the advisory clause implies the tool should not be used as an approval step. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-a-sibling guidance and no stated prerequisites for calling it.

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

Deploy Server