基于模型上下文协议（MCP）的双视角思维分析服务器，通过Actor-Critic方法提供全面的性能评估。
Related MCP server: Elrond MCP
双视角分析：在演员（创作者/表演者）和评论家（分析者/评估者）视角之间交替
回合追踪：追踪双视角分析回合
平衡评估：将同理心理解与客观分析相结合
多维评估：生成细致入微、多维的评估
可操作的反馈：提供建设性的改进建议
评估艺术表演、创意作品或战略决策
分析意图与执行之间的差距
提供兼顾创意愿景和技术执行的建设性反馈
回顾需要同理心和客观性的复杂场景
需要平衡评估主观和客观标准的情况
绩效评估需要自我反思和外部评估
受益于迭代改进的创意流程
content （字符串）：从指定角色角度的当前分析内容
role （字符串）：视角角色，选项：
"actor" ：演员视角（共情/创意视角）
"critic" ：批评家视角（分析/评价观点）
nextRoundNeeded （布尔值）：是否需要另一轮演员-评论家对话
thoughtNumber （整数）：序列中的当前想法编号（最小值：1）
totalThoughts （整数）：计划的想法总数（必须为奇数且> = 3）
演员的视角应该包括：
理解意图、创造性选择、情感背景、面临的挑战
对绩效和决策过程的自我反思
创意愿景和目标的解释
评论家的观点应该包括：
技术执行分析、效果评估
观众影响评估、比较分析
客观反馈和改进建议
{
"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系统提示：
您的任务是根据提供的描述和关键词，构思一个富有创意、令人难忘且具有市场竞争力的产品名称。产品名称应简洁（2-4 个词）、引人入胜，且目标受众易于理解。避免使用通用名称或过于字面化的名称。力求打造一个引人注目、抓住产品精髓并给人留下深刻印象的名称。
用户提示：
描述：一款无线降噪头戴式耳机，拥有20小时电池续航时间和触控功能。专为音响发烧友和经常旅行的人士设计。关键词：沉浸式、舒适、高保真、持久耐用、便捷
从演员或评论家的视角开始
交替使用不同视角来保持平衡
继续巡查，直到完成全面分析
关注相关的绩效方面
生成尊重双方观点的平衡评估
提供建设性的、可操作的反馈
仅当分析完成时将nextRoundNeeded设置为 false
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.
