MCP Dual-Cycle Reasoner

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some potential overlap between 'detect_loop' and 'process_trace_update' as both involve monitoring cognitive processes. The descriptions clarify their roles, with 'detect_loop' focused on loop detection and 'process_trace_update' handling general trace updates, but an agent might occasionally confuse them in practice.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as 'configure_detection', 'detect_loop', and 'start_monitoring'. This uniformity makes the set predictable and easy to navigate, with no deviations in naming conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the count is well-scoped for a dual-cycle reasoner server, covering configuration, monitoring, detection, and case management. Each tool appears to serve a specific function without redundancy, making the set appropriately sized for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for metacognitive monitoring and reasoning, including start/stop, detection, status retrieval, and case storage. A minor gap exists in tools for modifying or deleting stored cases, but core workflows are well-supported, allowing agents to work around this limitation.
Average 3.4/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 13, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide basic hints (non-readOnly, non-openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this. It mentions this is for 'main monitoring function' which suggests it might be part of a monitoring system, but doesn't explain what 'processing' entails, whether it triggers side effects, or how it interacts with the monitoring state. No contradiction with annotations exists, but the description doesn't significantly enhance understanding of the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Process a cognitive trace update') and adds clarifying context ('from the agent (main monitoring function)'). While efficient, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and annotations cover basic hints, the description provides minimal but adequate context for a processing function. It identifies the tool as part of monitoring, but doesn't explain what 'cognitive trace' is, what the update does, or what the expected outcomes are. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, more detail on behavior and results would improve completeness, but it's not entirely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters (current_context, goal, last_action, window_size). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Process a cognitive trace update from the agent' which provides a general purpose (processing updates) but lacks specificity about what 'cognitive trace' means or what resources are involved. It mentions 'main monitoring function' which adds some context but doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling monitoring tools like 'start_monitoring', 'stop_monitoring', or 'get_monitoring_status'. The purpose is understandable but vague compared to what could be achieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'detect_loop', 'retrieve_similar_cases', and 'store_experience' that might handle related cognitive or monitoring functions, there's no indication of when this specific update processing is appropriate versus other tools. The phrase 'main monitoring function' implies a central role but doesn't specify context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent configuration tool. The description adds that it configures 'parameters and indicators', which aligns with the annotations but doesn't provide additional behavioral context like whether changes persist, require specific permissions, or affect system performance. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters for configuration) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the configuration scope but doesn't explain what happens after configuration (e.g., whether changes take effect immediately, return values, or error conditions). With annotations covering basic behavioral hints, it meets baseline completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 6 parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 'loop detection parameters' and 'domain-specific progress indicators', which loosely maps to parameters like alternating_threshold, repetition_threshold, and progress_indicators, but adds no specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool configures 'loop detection parameters and domain-specific progress indicators', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like detect_loop (which likely performs detection rather than configuration) and reset_engine (which likely resets rather than configures). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like get_monitoring_status or store_experience.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools like detect_loop or reset_engine might be more suitable. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations declare, such as retrieval methods or limitations, but doesn't contradict them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the annotations cover safety and idempotency, and schema fully describes parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values or retrieval behavior, leaving gaps in completeness for a retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying retrieval based on problem description, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('retrieve') and resource ('similar cases from the case base'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'store_experience' or 'process_trace_update' that might also interact with cases, missing full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for retrieval, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover basic hints (e.g., not read-only, not destructive), but the description adds some context by implying this initiates a monitoring process, which suggests ongoing behavior. However, it doesn't detail what 'metacognitive monitoring' entails operationally, such as how it interacts with other tools or what side effects occur, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of an output schema and the abstract nature of 'metacognitive monitoring', the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after starting monitoring, what outputs or states to expect, or how it integrates with sibling tools, leaving significant contextual gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents both parameters ('goal' and 'initial_beliefs'). The description adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters, such as how they influence monitoring or typical values, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start metacognitive monitoring') and the target ('an agent's cognitive process'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'stop_monitoring' or 'get_monitoring_status' beyond the obvious start/stop distinction, which keeps it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stop_monitoring' or 'configure_detection'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction beyond the tool's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=false (mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent), and openWorldHint=false (closed-world). The description adds minimal context by implying persistence for 'future case-based reasoning,' but doesn't detail side effects like storage limits, auth needs, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Store a case for future case-based reasoning.' It's front-loaded with the core action and purpose, with no wasted words. Every element earns its place by clearly stating the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with three parameters), annotations provide safety and idempotency info, but no output schema exists. The description is minimal, covering only the basic purpose without details on return values or error cases. It's adequate as a starting point but lacks depth for full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters: outcome, problem_description, and solution. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as formatting examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Store a case for future case-based reasoning.' It specifies the verb 'store' and the resource 'a case,' making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_similar_cases,' which is related but serves a different function (retrieval vs. storage).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as when case storage is appropriate, or contrast it with siblings like 'configure_detection' or 'process_trace_update.' Usage is implied only by the purpose, with no explicit context or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds value by specifying 'using various strategies,' which hints at the detection_method parameter's options. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'stuck in a loop' means operationally or potential side effects like performance impact. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Detect if the agent is stuck in a loop using various strategies.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description is adequate but has gaps. It doesn't explain the return values or what 'detect' yields (e.g., a boolean, a report), which is critical since there's no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on results or integration with siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters: current_context, detection_method, and goal. The description mentions 'various strategies,' which loosely relates to the detection_method parameter but doesn't add specific meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description provides minimal extra parameter insight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Detect if the agent is stuck in a loop using various strategies.' It specifies the verb ('detect') and resource ('loop'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'configure_detection' or 'get_monitoring_status' which might be related to loop detection configuration or status monitoring. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or exclusions. With siblings like 'configure_detection' and 'start_monitoring', there's no indication of how this detection tool fits into a workflow or when it should be preferred over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, mentioning 'current' status which implies real-time data but doesn't specify refresh rates, data freshness, or performance characteristics. No contradiction with annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read operation with comprehensive annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain what 'status and statistics' includes (e.g., metrics, health indicators, timestamps). Given the sibling tools suggest a monitoring system context, more detail about the return format would be helpful for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4 as there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, focusing instead on what the tool retrieves. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('current monitoring status and statistics'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'start_monitoring' or 'stop_monitoring', but the 'Get' action differentiates it from mutation tools. The description avoids tautology by specifying what is being retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking current status, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'start_monitoring' or 'stop_monitoring'. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison to sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks specific when/when-not instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide significant behavioral information (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true, readOnlyHint: false). The description adds value by specifying 'dual-cycle engine state' as the target, which gives context about what gets reset. However, it doesn't elaborate on consequences like data loss or system downtime that would be helpful given the destructive nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a parameterless tool and immediately communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context about what 'reset' entails operationally. Annotations cover safety aspects, but the description could better explain the reset's scope, timing, or system impact given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it focuses on the tool's purpose instead.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Reset') and the target ('dual-cycle engine state'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'stop_monitoring' or 'configure_detection' that might also affect engine state, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stop_monitoring' or 'configure_detection'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover key traits: readOnlyHint=false (implies mutation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry). The description adds value by specifying that stopping monitoring yields a 'session summary', which isn't captured in annotations. It doesn't disclose rate limits or auth needs, but with annotations providing safety profile, this is acceptable. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('stop metacognitive monitoring') and adds the outcome ('get session summary'). Every word contributes meaning without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, annotations cover safety (non-destructive, idempotent), and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the action and result, though it could benefit from clarifying the format of the 'session summary' or any side effects. For a simple stop operation, it provides adequate context without overcomplicating.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details and focuses on the tool's action.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('stop monitoring' and 'get session summary') and identifies the resource ('metacognitive monitoring'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_monitoring' and 'get_monitoring_status' by indicating termination rather than initiation or status checking. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'reset_engine' or 'configure_detection', which might have overlapping contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when stopping monitoring is needed, suggesting context after monitoring has started (e.g., using 'start_monitoring'). It doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives like 'reset_engine' for similar cleanup actions. The guidance is basic and relies on inference from the tool name and sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-dual-cycle-reasoner MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cyqlelabs/mcp-dual-cycle-reasoner/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cyqlelabs/mcp-dual-cycle-reasoner)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-dual-cycle-reasoner MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cyqlelabs/mcp-dual-cycle-reasoner/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cyqlelabs/mcp-dual-cycle-reasoner)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cyqlelabs/mcp-dual-cycle-reasoner'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server