Control de calidad para procesos de IA — una herramienta MCP. Funciona con Claude Code, Claude Desktop y cualquier cliente MCP.
El 29.5% de los equipos NO realiza ninguna evaluación de los resultados de la IA. (Encuesta de LangChain) Los trabajadores del conocimiento dedican 4.3 horas/semana a verificar los resultados de la IA. (Microsoft 2025)
AgentDesk MCP soluciona esto. Añade una revisión adversarial independiente a cualquier proceso de IA en 30 segundos.
npx @ezark-publish/agentdesk-mcpclaude mcp add agentdesk-mcp -- npx @ezark-publish/agentdesk-mcp{
"mcpServers": {
"agentdesk-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@ezark-publish/agentdesk-mcp"],
"env": { "ANTHROPIC_API_KEY": "sk-ant-..." }
}
}
}Ejecútalo como un servidor HTTP para acceso remoto, alojamiento en Smithery o configuraciones de múltiples clientes:
# 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 --httpEndpoint de MCP: POST http://localhost:3100/mcp
Verificación de estado: GET http://localhost:3100/health
npm install github:Rih0z/agentdesk-mcpVariable de entorno ANTHROPIC_API_KEY (utiliza tu propia clave — BYOK)
Related MCP server: open-code-review
review_outputRevisión de calidad adversarial de cualquier resultado generado por IA. Un revisor independiente asume que el autor cometió errores y busca activamente problemas.
Entrada:
Parámetro | Requerido | Descripción |
| Sí | El resultado generado por la IA a revisar |
| No | Criterios de revisión personalizados |
| No | Categoría: |
| No | Modelo de revisor (predeterminado: |
Salida:
{
"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_dualRevisión adversarial dual — dos revisores independientes evalúan el resultado desde diferentes ángulos, luego un agente de fusión combina los hallazgos.
Si cualquiera de los revisores encuentra un problema crítico → el veredicto combinado es FAIL (FALLO)
Toma la puntuación más baja
Combina y elimina duplicados de todos los problemas
Úsalo para resultados de alto riesgo donde la calidad es crítica.
Mismos parámetros que review_output.
Prompting adversarial: Se instruye al revisor para que asuma que se cometieron errores. Sin beneficio de la duda.
Lista de verificación basada en evidencia: Cada elemento PASS (APROBADO) requiere evidencia específica. Los elementos sin evidencia se degradan automáticamente a FAIL (FALLO).
Validación anti-juego: Si más del 30% de los elementos de la lista de verificación carecen de evidencia, toda la revisión se fuerza a FAIL (FALLO) con una puntuación máxima de 50.
Salida estructurada: Veredicto + puntuación numérica + problemas categorizados + lista de verificación (no solo "se ve bien").
Revisión de código: Comprobar errores, problemas de seguridad, problemas de rendimiento
Revisión de contenido: Verificar precisión, legibilidad, SEO, adecuación a la audiencia
Verificación factual: Validar afirmaciones en texto generado por IA
Calidad de traducción: Comprobar precisión y naturalidad
Extracción de datos: Verificar integridad y corrección
Cualquier resultado de IA: Resúmenes, informes, propuestas, correos electrónicos, etc.
La autoevaluación tiene un sesgo de indulgencia sistemático. Un LLM que revisa su propio resultado comparte los mismos puntos ciegos que crearon los errores. La investigación muestra que los modelos tienen un 34% más de probabilidades de usar un lenguaje confiado cuando alucinan.
AgentDesk utiliza una invocación de revisor separada con prompting adversarial, fundamentalmente diferente de la autoevaluación.
Característica | AgentDesk MCP | Prompt manual | Braintrust | DeepEval |
Configuración de una herramienta | Sí | No | No | No |
Revisión adversarial | Sí | DIY | No | No |
Revisor dual | Sí | DIY | No | No |
Validación anti-juego | Sí | No | No | No |
No requiere SDK | Sí | Sí | No | No |
Nativo de MCP | Sí | No | No | No |
Inyección de prompt: Como todos los sistemas de LLM-como-juez, las entradas adversariales podrían intentar manipular los veredictos del revisor. La capa de validación anti-juego mitiga el juego superficial, pero las entradas adversariales determinadas siguen siendo un desafío. Para casos de uso de alto riesgo, combínalo con validación determinista.
Costo BYOK: Cada llamada a review_output realiza 1 llamada a la API de LLM; review_dual realiza 3. Ten esto en cuenta en los costos de tu proceso.
Para equipos que prefieren la integración HTTP, una API REST alojada con características adicionales (mercado de agentes, aprendizaje de contexto, flujos de trabajo) está disponible en agentdesk.usedevtools.com.
git clone https://github.com/Rih0z/agentdesk-mcp.git
cd agentdesk-mcp
npm install
npm test # 35 tests
npm run buildMIT
Creado por EZARK Consulting | Versión web
Execute a service on the AgentDesk marketplace. Requires an AgentDesk API key for authentication. Pass service-specific input parameters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service_id | Yes | Service ID to execute (e.g., "review", "web_scrape", "realtime_jp", "pdf_generate", "summarize", "classify") | |
| input | Yes | Service-specific input parameters | |
| api_key | No | BYOK: Your Anthropic API key (for AI-powered services like review) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions only an authentication requirement (API key) but does not describe side effects (e.g., whether executing a service modifies state), idempotency, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand what happens when the 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at two sentences with no wasted words. However, it could be more informative within the same length by clarifying the service execution context or referencing the sibling tools. The front-loading is reasonable but the brevity sacrifices completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how to properly use the api_key parameter. For a tool with nested objects and no output schema, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% as all parameters have descriptions. The description adds minimal value: it notes 'service-specific input parameters' but does not elaborate on how to structure the 'input' object for different service IDs. The api_key parameter is described in the schema as 'BYOK: Your Anthropic API key', while the description mentions an 'AgentDesk API key', causing slight inconsistency. Overall, the description does little beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Execute a service') and the resource ('AgentDesk marketplace'), providing a specific verb+resource pair. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its siblings (list_services, review_dual, review_output), which could lead to confusion about when to use this generic service execution tool versus those specialized tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions requiring an API key and passing service-specific input, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_services or review_dual. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., selecting a service from list_services first) or when not to use this tool. The phrase 'service-specific input parameters' lacks detail on how to determine which parameters are appropriate for a given service_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all available services on the AgentDesk marketplace. Returns service catalog with pricing, quality scores, and capabilities. Filter by category, minimum quality score, maximum price, or capability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter by category: quality_assurance, web_scraping, realtime_data, document_generation, text_processing | |
| min_score | No | Minimum quality score (0-100) | |
| max_price | No | Maximum price per call in USD | |
| capability | No | Filter by capability keyword |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors; it mentions returning service details but omits pagination, rate limits, or any restrictions. It is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states purpose, second adds return content and filters. Extremely concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basics but lacks details on pagination, error handling, or output structure, which might be needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, and the description merely lists the filter names without adding meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'available services on the AgentDesk marketplace', and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on browsing the catalog, while sibling tools execute or review services.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for browsing services with filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like execute_service or review tools, nor provides exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Dual adversarial review: two independent reviewers assess the output from different angles, then a merge agent combines their findings. Stricter than single review — if either reviewer finds a critical issue, the merged verdict is FAIL. Use for high-stakes outputs where quality is critical.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output | Yes | The AI-generated output to review (max 100K chars) | |
| criteria | No | Custom review criteria | |
| review_type | No | Review category label | |
| model | No | Reviewer model ID (default: claude-sonnet-4-6) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavior. It explains the dual review process and the merge verdict logic, but omits details like side effects, authentication needs, or output structure, leaving gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first explains the process, the second provides usage guidance and the verdict rule. No extraneous words, highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 adequately explains the core functionality but does not cover output format, error handling, or prerequisites, leaving room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so it does not improve understanding of parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool performs a dual adversarial review with two independent reviewers and a merge agent. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'review_output' by being stricter and specifying the verdict rule.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises using this tool for high-stakes outputs and contrasts it with single review, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the implied single review.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Adversarial quality review of any AI-generated output. An independent reviewer assumes the author made mistakes and actively looks for problems. Returns structured verdict (PASS/FAIL/CONDITIONAL_PASS), score (0-100), categorized issues with severity, and evidence-based checklist. Works for any output type: code, content, summaries, translations, data extraction, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output | Yes | The AI-generated output to review (max 100K chars) | |
| criteria | No | Custom review criteria — what specifically to check for | |
| review_type | No | Review category label (e.g., "code", "content", "factual", "translation") | |
| model | No | Reviewer model ID (default: claude-sonnet-4-6) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It describes the output structure (verdict, score, issues) but does not disclose any potential side effects, destructive actions, authentication needs, or rate limits. The 'adversarial' nature is mentioned but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing the output. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or verbose phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description effectively explains the return values (verdict, score, issues, checklist). It covers the tool's broad applicability and key inputs. Minor omissions: it does not clarify that 'criteria' is optional or describe defaults for 'review_type' and 'model'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%—all four parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only summarizes the output format. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs an adversarial quality review of AI-generated output, using specific verbs ('review') and a resource type ('output'). It does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'review_dual', suggesting both may perform reviews, so it misses the top score for sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for quality checking of any AI output, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'review_dual') or when not to use it. It lacks clear context for exclusion or alternative selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0execute_servicelist_servicesreview_dualreview_outputScored across 4 tools
The four tools are clearly divided into two distinct categories: marketplace services (execute_service, list_services) and output review (review_dual, review_output). Even within the review category, the two tools have well-differentiated purposes (single vs. dual adversarial review), so there is no ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: execute_service, list_services, review_dual, review_output. The naming is predictable and easy to understand.
With 4 tools, the server covers two distinct functions. While each function could benefit from more tools (e.g., more marketplace operations or review management), the current count is reasonable for a focused server and does not feel excessive or insufficient.
The marketplace side only offers list and execute, lacking create, update, or delete operations for services. The review side provides two types of reviews but no ability to list or manage past reviews. These gaps limit the server's coverage for its implied domain.
Adversarial behavioural-bias engine — audits your decisions for cognitive biases via your own AI.
Expert review for AI agents. On-chain proof of human review.
Agentic code review, no signup to try: reality gates + frontier-model review, with veto.
Devil's-advocate QC API for AIs: post a decision, get strongest counter-argument. 0.1 USDT/call
