Skip to main content
Glama

Challenge

challenge

Analyze statements critically by identifying assumptions, evaluating evidence, and exploring alternative perspectives to strengthen reasoning.

Instructions

Challenge a statement or assumption with critical thinking

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
promptYesThe user's message or statement to analyze critically. When manually invoked with 'challenge', exclude that prefix - just pass the actual content. For automatic invocations, pass the user's complete message unchanged.

Implementation Reference

  • Implementation of the handleChallenge method in AIToolHandlers class. This is the core logic for the 'challenge' tool: it wraps the input prompt with critical thinking instructions and returns a structured JSON response without invoking an AI model.
    async handleChallenge(params: z.infer<typeof ChallengeSchema>) {
      // Challenge tool doesn't use AI - it just wraps the prompt in critical thinking instructions
      const wrappedPrompt = this.wrapPromptForChallenge(params.prompt);
      
      const responseData = {
        status: "challenge_created",
        original_statement: params.prompt,
        challenge_prompt: wrappedPrompt,
        instructions: (
          "Present the challenge_prompt to yourself and follow its instructions. " +
          "Reassess the statement carefully and critically before responding. " +
          "If, after reflection, you find reasons to disagree or qualify it, explain your reasoning. " +
          "Likewise, if you find reasons to agree, articulate them clearly and justify your agreement."
        ),
      };
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(responseData, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • src/server.ts:335-342 (registration)
    Registration of the 'challenge' tool on the MCP server, specifying title, description, input schema, and handler invocation via aiHandlers.handleChallenge.
    server.registerTool("challenge", {
      title: "Challenge",
      description: "Challenge a statement or assumption with critical thinking",
      inputSchema: ChallengeSchema.shape,
    }, async (args) => {
      const aiHandlers = await getHandlers();
      return await aiHandlers.handleChallenge(args);
    });
  • Zod schema definition for the 'challenge' tool input, defining the required 'prompt' parameter with descriptive documentation.
    const ChallengeSchema = z.object({
      prompt: z.string().describe("The user's message or statement to analyze critically. When manually invoked with 'challenge', exclude that prefix - just pass the actual content. For automatic invocations, pass the user's complete message unchanged."),
    });
  • Duplicate Zod schema for ChallengeSchema used in the AIToolHandlers class for type inference in handleChallenge method.
    const ChallengeSchema = z.object({
      prompt: z.string().describe("The user's message or statement to analyze critically. When manually invoked with 'challenge', exclude that prefix - just pass the actual content. For automatic invocations, pass the user's complete message unchanged."),
    });
  • Factory function that lazily initializes and returns the AIToolHandlers instance (containing handleChallenge) and ProviderManager, used by all tool registrations including 'challenge'.
    async function getHandlers() {
      if (!handlers) {
        const { ConfigManager } = require("./config/manager");
        const { ProviderManager } = require("./providers/manager");
        const { AIToolHandlers } = require("./handlers/ai-tools");
        
        const configManager = new ConfigManager();
        
        // Load config and set environment variables
        const config = await configManager.getConfig();
        if (config.openai?.apiKey) {
          process.env.OPENAI_API_KEY = config.openai.apiKey;
        }
        if (config.openai?.baseURL) {
          process.env.OPENAI_BASE_URL = config.openai.baseURL;
        }
        if (config.google?.apiKey) {
          process.env.GOOGLE_API_KEY = config.google.apiKey;
        }
        if (config.google?.baseURL) {
          process.env.GOOGLE_BASE_URL = config.google.baseURL;
        }
        if (config.azure?.apiKey) {
          process.env.AZURE_API_KEY = config.azure.apiKey;
        }
        if (config.azure?.baseURL) {
          process.env.AZURE_BASE_URL = config.azure.baseURL;
        }
        if (config.xai?.apiKey) {
          process.env.XAI_API_KEY = config.xai.apiKey;
        }
        if (config.xai?.baseURL) {
          process.env.XAI_BASE_URL = config.xai.baseURL;
        }
        
        providerManager = new ProviderManager(configManager);
        handlers = new AIToolHandlers(providerManager);
      }
      
      return handlers;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool 'challenges with critical thinking,' it doesn't describe what this actually means operationally - what form the challenge takes, whether it's interactive or one-way, what permissions or constraints apply, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted words. Every word earns its place in communicating the essential function. This is model efficiency in technical documentation.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'challenging with critical thinking' means in practice, what the output format is, or how this differs from similar tools. The agent would have significant uncertainty about how to properly use this tool and interpret its results.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage. The schema fully documents the single 'prompt' parameter with clear usage instructions. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't add value but the schema already provides complete parameter documentation.

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's purpose: 'Challenge a statement or assumption with critical thinking.' This specifies the verb ('challenge') and the target ('statement or assumption'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'ultra-challenge' or explain how it differs from other analysis tools like 'analyze-code' or 'investigate'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for analysis (e.g., 'analyze-code', 'investigate', 'ultra-challenge'), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific critical thinking challenge tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/RealMikeChong/ultra-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server