Actor-Critic 방법론을 통해 포괄적인 성과 평가를 제공하는 Model Context Protocol(MCP) 기반의 이중 관점 사고 분석 서버입니다.
Related MCP server: Elrond MCP
이중 관점 분석 : 행위자(창작자/연주자)와 비평가(분석자/평가자) 관점을 번갈아 가며 분석합니다.
라운드 추적 : 이중 관점 분석 라운드를 추적합니다.
균형 잡힌 평가 : 공감적 이해와 객관적 분석을 결합합니다.
다차원 평가 : 섬세하고 다차원적인 평가를 생성합니다.
실행 가능한 피드백 : 건설적인 개선 제안을 제공합니다.
예술 공연, 창작물 또는 전략적 결정 평가
의도와 실행 사이의 격차 분석
창의적인 비전과 기술적 실행을 모두 고려한 건설적인 피드백 제공
공감과 객관성이 모두 필요한 복잡한 시나리오 검토
주관적 기준과 객관적 기준의 균형 잡힌 평가가 필요한 상황
자기성찰과 외부평가가 모두 필요한 성과평가
반복적인 개선을 통해 이익을 얻는 창의적 프로세스
content (문자열): 지정된 역할 관점에서의 현재 분석 콘텐츠
role (문자열): 관점 역할, 옵션:
"actor" : 배우의 관점 (공감/창의적 관점)
"critic" : 비평가적 관점(분석적/평가적 관점)
nextRoundNeeded (부울): 배우-비평가 대화의 또 다른 라운드가 필요한지 여부
thoughtNumber (정수): 시퀀스의 현재 생각 번호(최소: 1)
totalThoughts (정수): 계획된 생각의 총 개수(홀수여야 하며 3 이상이어야 함)
배우의 관점에는 다음이 포함되어야 합니다.
의도, 창의적인 선택, 감정적 맥락, 직면한 과제 이해
성과와 의사결정 과정에 대한 자기성찰
창의적 비전과 목표에 대한 설명
비평가의 관점에는 다음이 포함되어야 합니다.
기술 실행 분석, 효과성 평가
청중 영향 평가, 비교 분석
객관적인 피드백 및 개선 제안
지엑스피1
# Build the project
npm run build
# Run the server
node dist/index.js시스템 프롬프트:
제공된 설명과 키워드를 기반으로 창의적이고 기억에 남으며 시장성이 있는 제품 이름을 만드는 것이 과제입니다. 제품 이름은 간결하고(2~4단어), 기억에 남으며 타겟 고객이 쉽게 이해할 수 있어야 합니다. 일반적이거나 지나치게 직설적인 이름은 피하세요. 대신, 눈에 띄고 제품의 본질을 포착하며 오래도록 기억에 남는 이름을 만드는 것을 목표로 하세요.
사용자 프롬프트:
설명: 20시간 배터리 수명과 터치 컨트롤을 갖춘 노이즈 캔슬링 무선 오버이어 헤드폰입니다. 오디오 애호가와 잦은 출장객을 위해 설계되었습니다. 키워드: 몰입감, 편안함, 고음질, 내구성, 편리함
배우 또는 비평가의 관점에서 시작하세요
균형을 유지하려면 관점을 번갈아 가며 살펴보세요.
포괄적인 분석이 달성될 때까지 라운드를 계속합니다.
관련 성과 측면에 집중하세요
두 관점을 모두 존중하는 균형 잡힌 평가를 생성합니다.
건설적이고 실행 가능한 피드백을 제공하세요
분석이 완료되면 nextRoundNeeded 만 false로 설정합니다.
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.
