Elrond MCP
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| LOG_LEVEL | No | Logging level | INFO |
| GEMINI_API_KEY | Yes | Required Google AI API key (get one at Google AI Studio) |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| consult_the_councilA | Analyze a proposal using hierarchical LLM critique and synthesis. This tool runs three specialized critique agents (positive, neutral, negative) in parallel to analyze the proposal, then synthesizes their perspectives into a comprehensive analysis with recommendations. Args: proposal: Markdown-formatted proposal outlining the salient points of the solution to be analyzed Returns: Complete analysis including all critiques and synthesis with consensus view, recommendations, and next steps |
| check_system_statusB | Check the status of the thinking augmentation system. Returns: Dictionary containing system status information including API key availability, model configurations, and health status |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one checks system status, while the other analyzes proposals through hierarchical critique. There is no overlap in functionality or potential for confusion between monitoring system health and conducting proposal analysis.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern: check_system_status and consult_the_council. The naming is clear, descriptive, and follows the same convention throughout the toolset.
With only two tools, this server feels severely under-equipped for what appears to be a thinking augmentation system. The tools cover basic status checking and proposal analysis, but there are likely many missing operations for a comprehensive augmentation system (e.g., configuration management, history tracking, different analysis modes).
The tool surface is significantly incomplete for a thinking augmentation system. While the two tools provide some functionality, there are obvious gaps: no way to configure the system, no historical analysis tracking, no ability to modify critique parameters, and no integration with external data sources. The tools feel like isolated endpoints rather than a complete system.