agentdesk-mcp
AgentDesk MCP — Adversarial AI Review
Quality control for AI pipelines — one MCP tool. Works with Claude Code, Claude Desktop, and any MCP client.
29.5% of teams do NO evaluation of AI outputs. (LangChain Survey) Knowledge workers spend 4.3 hours/week fact-checking AI outputs. (Microsoft 2025)
AgentDesk MCP fixes this. Add independent adversarial review to any AI pipeline in 30 seconds.
Quick Start
npm (recommended)
npx @ezark-publish/agentdesk-mcpClaude Code
claude mcp add agentdesk-mcp -- npx @ezark-publish/agentdesk-mcpClaude Desktop
{
"mcpServers": {
"agentdesk-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@ezark-publish/agentdesk-mcp"],
"env": { "ANTHROPIC_API_KEY": "sk-ant-..." }
}
}
}HTTP Transport (Streamable HTTP)
Run as an HTTP server for remote access, Smithery hosting, or multi-client setups:
# Start with HTTP transport on port 3100
MCP_HTTP_PORT=3100 npx @ezark-publish/agentdesk-mcp
# Or use the --http flag (defaults to port 3100)
npx @ezark-publish/agentdesk-mcp --httpMCP endpoint: POST http://localhost:3100/mcp
Health check: GET http://localhost:3100/health
Install from GitHub (alternative)
npm install github:Rih0z/agentdesk-mcpRequirements
ANTHROPIC_API_KEYenvironment variable (uses your own key — BYOK)
Tools
review_output
Adversarial quality review of any AI-generated output. An independent reviewer assumes the author made mistakes and actively looks for problems.
Input:
Parameter | Required | Description |
| Yes | The AI-generated output to review |
| No | Custom review criteria |
| No | Category: |
| No | Reviewer model (default: |
Output:
{
"verdict": "PASS | FAIL | CONDITIONAL_PASS",
"score": 82,
"issues": [
{
"severity": "high",
"category": "accuracy",
"description": "Claim about X is unsupported",
"suggestion": "Add citation or remove claim"
}
],
"checklist": [
{
"item": "Factual accuracy",
"status": "pass",
"evidence": "All statistics match cited sources"
}
],
"summary": "Overall assessment...",
"reviewer_model": "claude-sonnet-4-6"
}review_dual
Dual adversarial review — two independent reviewers assess the output from different angles, then a merge agent combines findings.
If either reviewer finds a critical issue → merged verdict is FAIL
Takes the lower score
Combines and deduplicates all issues
Use for high-stakes outputs where quality is critical.
Same parameters as review_output.
How It Works
Adversarial prompting: The reviewer is instructed to assume mistakes were made. No benefit of the doubt.
Evidence-based checklist: Every PASS item requires specific evidence. Items without evidence are automatically downgraded to FAIL.
Anti-gaming validation: If >30% of checklist items lack evidence, the entire review is forced to FAIL with a capped score of 50.
Structured output: Verdict + numeric score + categorized issues + checklist (not just "looks good").
Use Cases
Code review: Check for bugs, security issues, performance problems
Content review: Verify accuracy, readability, SEO, audience fit
Factual verification: Validate claims in AI-generated text
Translation quality: Check accuracy and naturalness
Data extraction: Verify completeness and correctness
Any AI output: Summaries, reports, proposals, emails, etc.
Why Not Just Ask the Same AI to Review?
Self-review has systematic leniency bias. An LLM reviewing its own output shares the same blind spots that created the errors. Research shows models are 34% more likely to use confident language when hallucinating.
AgentDesk uses a separate reviewer invocation with adversarial prompting — fundamentally different from self-review.
Comparison
Feature | AgentDesk MCP | Manual prompt | Braintrust | DeepEval |
One-tool setup | Yes | No | No | No |
Adversarial review | Yes | DIY | No | No |
Dual reviewer | Yes | DIY | No | No |
Anti-gaming validation | Yes | No | No | No |
No SDK required | Yes | Yes | No | No |
MCP native | Yes | No | No | No |
Limitations
Prompt injection: Like all LLM-as-judge systems, adversarial inputs could attempt to manipulate reviewer verdicts. The anti-gaming validation layer mitigates superficial gaming, but determined adversarial inputs remain a challenge. For high-stakes use cases, combine with deterministic validation.
BYOK cost: Each
review_outputcall makes 1 LLM API call;review_dualmakes 3. Factor this into your pipeline costs.
Hosted API (Separate Product)
For teams that prefer HTTP integration, a hosted REST API with additional features (agent marketplace, context learning, workflows) is available at agentdesk.usedevtools.com.
Development
git clone https://github.com/Rih0z/agentdesk-mcp.git
cd agentdesk-mcp
npm install
npm test # 35 tests
npm run buildLicense
MIT
Built by EZARK Consulting | Web Version
Appeared in Searches
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/Rih0z/agentdesk-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server