MKP MCP Server

mkp_enhance_cognition

Request cognitive enhancement for a specific domain and task to boost reasoning and domain expertise.

Instructions

Request cognitive enhancement for specific domain and 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": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "task": "<task>"
    },
    "name": "mkp_enhance_cognition"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain for cognitive enhancement
`task`	Yes	Specific task requiring enhancement

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic purpose without mentioning whether the operation is destructive, read-only, or requires authentication. The agent cannot infer side effects or safety profile.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, 8 words), which is appropriate for a simple tool. However, it omits essential usage and behavioral information, making it less effective overall.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior, side effects, or appropriate use cases. It covers only the basic purpose.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing basic meaning for 'domain' and 'task'. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Request') and resource ('cognitive enhancement') with specific domain and task. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like mkp_analyze_context or mkp_get_capabilities, which focus on analysis and retrieval rather than enhancement.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mkp_analyze_context or mkp_trigger_conversation. The description lacks context on prerequisites or limitations, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

Deploy Server