Discover relevant brutalist analysis tools based on your intent, like checking code quality or auth security. Returns the top 3 matches for direct technical feedback.
Discover relevant brutalist tools based on your intent. Returns the top 3 most relevant analysis tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| intent | Yes | What you want to analyze (e.g., 'review security of my auth system', 'check code quality') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.18.10v1.18.9v1.14.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the output (top 3 tools) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or any rate limits. The minimal description lacks behavioral context.
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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and output. However, it could include more detail without being verbose.
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 single parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves out the format of the returned tools (e.g., names, IDs). It is complete enough for a simple discovery tool but could be improved.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'intent' well-described. The description reinforces that intent is used for discovery but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 discovers brutalist tools based on intent and returns the top 3, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'roast' or 'cli_agent_roster' which have different purposes.
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 implies usage when a user wants to find analysis tools, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The context from sibling names is not leveraged.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.