モデルコンテキストプロトコル (MCP) に基づく二重視点の思考分析サーバー。Actor-Critic 手法による包括的なパフォーマンス評価を提供します。
Related MCP server: Elrond MCP
二重視点分析：行為者（作成者/実行者）と批評家（分析者/評価者）の視点を交互に行う
ラウンドトラッキング：二重視点分析のラウンドを追跡します
バランスのとれた評価：共感的理解と客観的な分析を組み合わせる
多次元評価：ニュアンスに富んだ多次元の評価を生成する
実用的なフィードバック: 建設的な改善提案を提供します
芸術的なパフォーマンス、創造的な作品、または戦略的決定を評価する
意図と実行のギャップを分析する
創造的なビジョンと技術的な実行の両方を考慮した建設的なフィードバックを提供する
共感と客観性の両方を必要とする複雑なシナリオを検討する
主観的基準と客観的基準のバランスの取れた評価が必要な状況
自己反省と外部評価の両方を必要とする業績評価
反復的な改良から恩恵を受ける創造プロセス
content （文字列）：指定されたロールの観点からの現在の分析コンテンツ
role (文字列): パースペクティブロール、オプション:
"actor" ：俳優の視点（共感的・創造的な視点）
"critic" ：批評家の視点（分析的・評価的観点）
nextRoundNeeded (boolean): 俳優と批評家の対話の次のラウンドが必要かどうか
thoughtNumber （整数）：シーケンス内の現在の思考番号（最小：1）
totalThoughts (整数): 計画された思考の合計数 (奇数かつ 3 以上である必要があります)
俳優の視点には以下が含まれます。
意図、創造的な選択、感情的な文脈、直面した課題を理解する
パフォーマンスと意思決定プロセスに関する自己反省
創造的なビジョンと目標の説明
批評家の視点には以下が含まれる必要があります:
技術的実行分析、有効性評価
視聴者への影響評価、比較分析
客観的なフィードバックと改善提案
{
"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.jsシステムプロンプト:
あなたの課題は、提供された説明とキーワードに基づいて、クリエイティブで記憶に残り、市場性のある製品名を作成することです。製品名は簡潔（2～4語）で、印象に残り、ターゲット層が理解しやすいものにしてください。一般的な名前や過度に文字通りの名前は避けてください。目立つ名前、製品の本質を捉えた名前、そして長く記憶に残る名前を目指してください。
ユーザープロンプト:
説明: ノイズキャンセリング機能搭載、ワイヤレス、オーバーイヤーヘッドホン。20時間のバッテリー駆動時間とタッチコントロールを備えています。オーディオ愛好家や頻繁に旅行する方のために設計されています。キーワード: 没入感、快適性、高音質、長時間持続、便利
俳優または批評家の視点から始める
バランスを保つために視点を切り替える
包括的な分析が達成されるまでラウンドを継続する
関連するパフォーマンスの側面に焦点を当てる
両方の視点を尊重したバランスの取れた評価を作成する
建設的で実用的なフィードバックを提供する
分析が完了したらnextRoundNeeded false に設定するだけです
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.
