Ein Server zur Analyse des Denkens mit zwei Perspektiven, der auf dem Model Context Protocol (MCP) basiert und eine umfassende Leistungsbewertung durch die Actor-Critic-Methode bietet.
Related MCP server: Elrond MCP
Analyse mit zwei Perspektiven : Wechselt zwischen der Perspektive des Akteurs (Schöpfer/Darsteller) und der Perspektive des Kritikers (Analysator/Bewerter)
Rundenverfolgung : Verfolgt Runden der Analyse aus zwei Perspektiven
Ausgewogene Beurteilung : Kombiniert einfühlsames Verständnis mit objektiver Analyse
Mehrdimensionale Bewertung : Generiert differenzierte, mehrdimensionale Bewertungen
Umsetzbares Feedback : Bietet konstruktive Verbesserungsvorschläge
Bewertung künstlerischer Leistungen, kreativer Arbeiten oder strategischer Entscheidungen
Analyse der Lücke zwischen Absicht und Ausführung
Bereitstellung von konstruktivem Feedback, das sowohl die kreative Vision als auch die technische Umsetzung berücksichtigt
Überprüfung komplexer Szenarien, die sowohl Empathie als auch Objektivität erfordern
Situationen, die eine ausgewogene Bewertung subjektiver und objektiver Kriterien erfordern
Leistungsbeurteilungen, die sowohl Selbstreflexion als auch Fremdbewertung erfordern
Kreative Prozesse, die von iterativer Verfeinerung profitieren
content (string): Aktueller Analyseinhalt aus der angegebenen Rollenperspektive
role (Zeichenfolge): Perspektivrolle, Optionen:
"actor" : Perspektive des Schauspielers (empathischer/kreativer Standpunkt)
"critic" : Kritikerperspektive (analytischer/bewertender Standpunkt)
nextRoundNeeded (Boolesch): Ob eine weitere Runde des Schauspieler-Kritiker-Dialogs erforderlich ist
thoughtNumber (Ganzzahl): Aktuelle Gedankennummer in der Sequenz (Minimum: 1)
totalThoughts (Ganzzahl): Gesamtzahl der geplanten Gedanken (muss ungerade und >= 3 sein)
Die Perspektive des Akteurs sollte Folgendes umfassen:
Verständnis von Absichten, kreativen Entscheidungen, emotionalem Kontext und Herausforderungen
Selbstreflexion über Leistung und Entscheidungsprozess
Erläuterung der kreativen Vision und Ziele
Die kritische Perspektive sollte Folgendes umfassen:
Technische Ausführungsanalyse, Wirksamkeitsbewertung
Publikumswirkungsmessung, Vergleichsanalyse
Objektives Feedback und Verbesserungsvorschläge
{
"mcpServers": {
"actor-critic-thinking": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-server-actor-critic-thinking"]
}
}
}
# Build the project
npm run build
# Run the server
node dist/index.jsSystemaufforderung:
Ihre Aufgabe ist es, basierend auf der bereitgestellten Beschreibung und den Schlüsselwörtern kreative, einprägsame und marktfähige Produktnamen zu entwickeln. Die Produktnamen sollten prägnant (2–4 Wörter), einprägsam und für die Zielgruppe leicht verständlich sein. Vermeiden Sie generische oder allzu wörtliche Namen. Streben Sie stattdessen einen Namen an, der auffällt, die Essenz des Produkts einfängt und einen bleibenden Eindruck hinterlässt.
Benutzeraufforderung:
Beschreibung: Ein kabelloser Over-Ear-Kopfhörer mit Geräuschunterdrückung, 20 Stunden Akkulaufzeit und Touch-Bedienung. Entwickelt für Audiophile und Vielreisende. Schlüsselwörter: immersiv, komfortabel, Hi-Fi, langlebig, praktisch
Beginnen Sie entweder mit der Schauspieler- oder Kritikerperspektive
Wechseln Sie zwischen den Perspektiven, um das Gleichgewicht zu wahren
Setzen Sie die Runden fort, bis eine umfassende Analyse erreicht ist
Fokus auf relevante Leistungsaspekte
Erstellen Sie ausgewogene Bewertungen, die beide Perspektiven berücksichtigen
Geben Sie konstruktives, umsetzbares Feedback
Setzen Sie nextRoundNeeded erst auf „false“, wenn die Analyse abgeschlossen ist.
A sophisticated tool for dual-perspective performance analysis through actor-critic methodology. This tool enables comprehensive evaluation of performances, creative works, or decisions by embodying both the performer's mindset and the critic's analytical perspective. Each thought alternates between actor (creative/experiential) and critic (analytical/evaluative) viewpoints, creating a balanced assessment.
When to use this tool:
Evaluating artistic performances, creative works, or strategic decisions
Analyzing the gap between intention and execution
Providing constructive feedback that considers both creative vision and technical execution
Reviewing complex scenarios that require both empathy and objectivity
Situations requiring balanced assessment of subjective and objective criteria
Performance reviews that need both self-reflection and external evaluation
Creative processes that benefit from iterative refinement
Key features:
Alternates between actor (performer) and critic (evaluator) perspectives
Tracks rounds of dual-perspective analysis
Allows for multiple rounds of actor-critic dialogue
Balances empathetic understanding with objective analysis
Generates nuanced, multi-dimensional assessments
Provides actionable feedback for improvement
Parameters explained:
content: Your current analysis content from the specified role perspective
role: Either "actor" (empathetic/creative viewpoint) or "critic" (analytical/evaluative viewpoint)
nextRoundNeeded: True if another round of actor-critic dialogue is needed
thoughtNumber: Current thought number in the sequence (increments with each thought)
totalThoughts: Total number of thoughts planned (must be odd and >= 3)
Actor perspective should include:
Understanding intentions, creative choices, emotional context, challenges faced
Self-reflection on performance and decision-making process
Explanation of creative vision and goals
Critic perspective should include:
Technical execution analysis, effectiveness evaluation
Audience impact assessment, comparative analysis
Objective feedback and improvement suggestions
You should:
Start with either actor or critic perspective
Alternate between perspectives to maintain balance
Continue rounds until comprehensive analysis is achieved
Focus on relevant performance aspects
Generate balanced assessments that honor both perspectives
Provide constructive, actionable feedback
Only set nextRoundNeeded to false when analysis is complete
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | Your current analysis content from the specified role perspective | |
| nextRoundNeeded | Yes | Whether another round of actor-critic dialogue is needed | |
| role | Yes | The perspective role: 'actor' for empathetic/creative viewpoint, 'critic' for analytical/evaluative viewpoint | |
| thoughtNumber | Yes | Current thought number in the sequence | |
| totalThoughts | Yes | Total number of thoughts planned (must be odd and >= 3) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels at disclosing behavioral traits. It explains the alternating perspective mechanism, tracks rounds, allows multiple dialogue rounds, balances empathy and objectivity, generates nuanced assessments, and provides actionable feedback. It includes detailed instructions on how to use the tool (start with either perspective, alternate, continue until complete) and what each perspective should include.
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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, when to use, key features, parameters explained, perspective details, instructions), but it's quite lengthy with multiple bullet points and numbered lists. While all content is relevant, it could be more front-loaded and condensed without losing essential information.
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 tool's conceptual complexity, 5 parameters with 100% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It thoroughly explains the methodology, usage scenarios, parameters, perspective requirements, and step-by-step instructions. The only minor gap is lack of explicit output format information, but the tool's nature makes return values self-explanatory from the analysis process.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value with a 'Parameters explained' section that elaborates on each parameter's purpose, plus detailed 'Actor perspective should include' and 'Critic perspective should include' sections that provide context for how to use the 'content' and 'role' parameters effectively. This goes well beyond what the schema 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 tool's purpose as 'dual-perspective performance analysis through actor-critic methodology' and 'comprehensive evaluation of performances, creative works, or decisions'. It specifies the verb 'evaluate' and resource 'performances/creative works/decisions', though it doesn't differentiate from siblings since none exist. The purpose is specific but slightly abstract due to the conceptual nature of the tool.
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 provides an explicit 'When to use this tool' section with 7 specific scenarios, including evaluating artistic performances, analyzing intention-execution gaps, providing constructive feedback, reviewing complex scenarios, and performance reviews. It gives clear context for application without alternatives needed since no sibling tools exist.
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.
v1.0.0actor-critic-thinkingScored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no ambiguity or overlap between tools. The single tool 'actor-critic-thinking' has a clearly defined and distinct purpose focused on dual-perspective analysis, leaving no room for confusion or misselection.
The tool name 'actor-critic-thinking' follows a consistent pattern of descriptive, hyphenated naming. Since there is only one tool, there is no inconsistency in naming conventions across the set.
The server has only one tool, which feels thin for a server named 'Actor-Critic Thinking MCP Server' that suggests a broader analytical domain. While the tool is sophisticated, a single tool limits the scope and may not fully cover potential related operations like managing analysis sessions or integrating with other data sources.
The tool provides a specific analysis method but leaves significant gaps in the domain of performance or creative evaluation. There are no tools for creating, listing, updating, or deleting analyses, nor for handling related data such as performance records or feedback archives, making the surface incomplete for comprehensive workflow support.
Adversarial behavioural-bias engine — audits your decisions for cognitive biases via your own AI.
MCP-native AI evaluation: rubric audits, eval suites, and proof reports for AI/LLM output.
Multi-model AI debates: GPT-4o, Claude, Gemini & 200+ models discuss, then synthesize insight.
Code review by AI models from different companies, usually two. Shows where they agree and disagree.
