Skip to main content
Glama
ejmockler

Brutalist MCP

by ejmockler
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.18.9

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The tools have clearly distinct purposes: cli_agent_roster is informational (listing agents), while roast_cli_debate is operational (running a debate). No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tools use snake_case, but the pattern differs: cli_agent_roster is noun-like, while roast_cli_debate is verb-like. This minor inconsistency prevents a perfect score.

    Tool Count4/5

    With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but focused. It covers the essential functions of listing agents and running debates, appropriate for a narrow utility.

    Completeness3/5

    The tool surface covers listing and debating but lacks supporting operations like agent details, debate history, or configuration. Some notable gaps exist.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 86 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • 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?

    Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It reveals that positions are assigned and not necessarily held, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks detail on side effects, costs, or what 'constitutional position anchoring' entails. Some behavioral context is provided, but not comprehensive.

    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 concise with three front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives an instruction, and the third warns about output interpretation. It wastes no words but could be slightly more structured.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given 17 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain pagination parameters (cursor, offset, context_id), debate flow, return values, or configuration of agents/models. The schema descriptions help, but the tool description itself is insufficient for full 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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no significant per-parameter detail beyond what is in the schema, aside from emphasizing extraction of pro/con positions. This meets the baseline for high coverage.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's function: deploying two CLI agents in a structured adversarial debate with constitutional position anchoring. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'roast' (likely single-agent) and 'cli_agent_roster' (listing agents).

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides specific usage instructions: 'Calling agent should extract PRO/CON positions from topic before invoking' and advises critical evaluation of output since positions are assigned. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

    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?

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden and clearly indicates a read-only display operation. It does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, but this is acceptable for a simple listing tool.

    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 sentence that quickly communicates the tool's purpose. The dramatic language ('demolish your work') may be slightly confusing but does not detract from clarity. It is front-loaded and efficient.

    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 zero parameters, no output schema, and simple functionality, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It could mention whether the output is a list or formatted text, but this is not critical.

    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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it appropriately avoids redundant information.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool displays available CLI agent critics, their capabilities, and deployment instructions. It uses a specific verb ('display') and resource ('roster'), and distinguishes from siblings which involve discovery (brutalist_discover) or actions (roast, roast_cli_debate).

    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 using the tool to learn about available critics before deploying them, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage 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

brutalist-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

brutalist-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/ejmockler/brutalist-mcp'

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