Un servidor de análisis de pensamiento de doble perspectiva basado en el Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo (MCP), que proporciona una evaluación integral del desempeño a través de la metodología Actor-Crítico.
Related MCP server: Elrond MCP
Análisis de doble perspectiva : alterna entre las perspectivas del actor (creador/intérprete) y del crítico (analizador/evaluador).
Seguimiento de rondas : realiza un seguimiento de las rondas de análisis de doble perspectiva
Evaluación equilibrada : combina la comprensión empática con el análisis objetivo.
Evaluación multidimensional : genera evaluaciones multidimensionales y matizadas
Comentarios prácticos : proporciona sugerencias de mejora constructivas
Evaluación de actuaciones artísticas, obras creativas o decisiones estratégicas
Analizando la brecha entre intención y ejecución
Proporcionar comentarios constructivos que consideren tanto la visión creativa como la ejecución técnica.
Revisar escenarios complejos que requieren tanto empatía como objetividad
Situaciones que requieren una evaluación equilibrada de criterios subjetivos y objetivos
Evaluaciones de desempeño que requieren tanto autorreflexión como evaluación externa
Procesos creativos que se benefician del refinamiento iterativo
content (cadena): contenido del análisis actual desde la perspectiva del rol especificado
role (cadena): Rol de perspectiva, opciones:
"actor" : perspectiva del actor (punto de vista empático/creativo)
"critic" : perspectiva crítica (punto de vista analítico/evaluativo)
nextRoundNeeded (booleano): si se necesita otra ronda de diálogo entre actor y crítico
thoughtNumber (entero): Número de pensamiento actual en la secuencia (mínimo: 1)
totalThoughts (entero): Número total de pensamientos planificados (debe ser impar y >= 3)
La perspectiva del actor debe incluir:
Comprender las intenciones, las elecciones creativas, el contexto emocional y los desafíos enfrentados.
Autorreflexión sobre el desempeño y el proceso de toma de decisiones
Explicación de la visión y los objetivos creativos
La perspectiva crítica debe incluir:
Análisis de ejecución técnica, evaluación de efectividad
Evaluación del impacto en la audiencia, análisis comparativo
Comentarios objetivos y sugerencias de mejora
{
"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.jsAviso del sistema:
Tu tarea consiste en generar nombres de producto creativos, memorables y atractivos para el mercado, basándote en la descripción y las palabras clave proporcionadas. Los nombres de producto deben ser concisos (de 2 a 4 palabras), evocadores y fáciles de entender para el público objetivo. Evita nombres genéricos o demasiado literales. En su lugar, busca un nombre que destaque, capture la esencia del producto y deje una impresión duradera.
Aviso al usuario:
Descripción: Audífonos inalámbricos circumaurales con cancelación de ruido, 20 horas de batería y controles táctiles. Diseñados para audiófilos y viajeros frecuentes. Palabras clave: inmersivos, cómodos, alta fidelidad, duraderos, prácticos.
Comience con la perspectiva del actor o del crítico.
Alterne entre perspectivas para mantener el equilibrio.
Continuar las rondas hasta lograr un análisis completo.
Centrarse en los aspectos de rendimiento relevantes
Generar evaluaciones equilibradas que honren ambas perspectivas
Proporcionar comentarios constructivos y prácticos
Solo establezca nextRoundNeeded en falso cuando se complete el análisis
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.
