jef-mcp

Ask Jef if it is a red flag

jef_flag

Read-onlyIdempotent

Classify a described behavior as a red, green, or beige flag. Use it to get a verdict on whether someone's action signals harm, positivity, or just oddity.

Instructions

Judge a described behaviour as RED FLAG, GREEN FLAG or BEIGE FLAG. Use this when the user describes something someone did and wants a verdict on it. Beige means neither good nor bad, merely odd. Anything describing harm, threats or abuse escalates instead of being judged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`behaviour`	Yes	What the person did, in one sentence.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	Which decision shape was used.
`answer`	Yes	Exactly "RED FLAG", "GREEN FLAG" or "BEIGE FLAG".
`blocked`	Yes	True when the input contained profanity, slurs or sexual content. Nothing was stored or echoed. Do not retry.
`ranking`	No	The options in order, best first. Null unless the shape was order.
`cost_usd`	No	Always 0. There is no billing.
`thoughts`	No	Always 0.
`escalated`	Yes	True when the input touched health, harm, money, law or safety. Tell the person to ask a human. Do not rephrase and retry.
`confidence`	Yes	0.84 to 0.99 normally, exactly 0 when escalated or blocked. It is not calibrated and means nothing.
`latency_ms`	No	Negative. Jef answers before you ask.
`tokens_read`	No	Always 0. The input is hashed, not read.
`probabilities`	No	One entry per option, percentages summing to 100. Null unless the shape was pick.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.7Sep 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the escalation rule for harmful content and defines 'beige', providing context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. It is concise without wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With one parameter fully described in the schema and an output schema present, the description covers the key behavioral nuances (escalation, definition of beige). It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though it does not mention the exact output format, which is likely in the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter 'behaviour' is described adequately. The description adds meaning by clarifying that it should be a one-sentence behavior description and specifies the escalation condition, enhancing the schema's basic description.

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 states a specific verb ('Judge') and resource ('described behaviour') with a clear output (RED/GREEN/BEIGE flag). It is not a tautology and clearly distinguishes itself as a judgment tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly states when to use ('when the user describes something someone did and wants a verdict') and when not to (anything describing harm, threats, or abuse escalates). It lacks explicit alternative tool names but provides a clear condition for not using it.

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

Deploy Server