multivon-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

eval_discover

Return a machine-readable catalog of evaluators, trap families, suites, calibration thresholds, and versions to plan an evaluation strategy without guessing tool names.

Instructions

Return the full machine-readable capability catalog.

Useful as a first call at session start — an agent can plan its evaluation strategy against the actual available evaluators rather than guessing or hallucinating tool names.

Returns: A dict with six top-level keys:

- ``evaluators``: every available multivon-eval evaluator,
  with its category, import path, evaluator ID, and summary.
- ``traps``: every pdfhell trap family, the failure mode each
  elicits, and the expected_failure_mode metadata.
- ``suites``: every named pdfhell suite, the (trap_family,
  seed_count) breakdown, and the suite_hash for the canonical
  version.
- ``calibration``: shipped per-(evaluator, judge) threshold rows.
- ``version``: installed multivon-mcp, multivon-eval, and pdfhell
  versions.
- ``server``: the stable server identifier.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's non-mutating nature by describing a return-only operation retturns a dict with six top-level keys and their semantics. It also adds behavioral context about avoiding hallucinated tool names. It doesn't mention potential side effects or rate limits, but for a catalog-retrieval tool the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. The return-value breakdown is detailed but not bloated. It could arguably be more concise, but every section earns its place by helping an agent understand what to expect.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter discovery tool, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, how the agent should use it, and why it matters. The output schema exists, so the detailed return-value listing in the description is a helpful supplement, not a requirement. Nothing critical is missing.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses on the return value, which is what an agent needs to know. A baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate here.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('full machine-readable capability catalog'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling evaluator tools by framing it as a discovery/capability-planning call, so an agent can tell it apart from eval_* and pdfhell_* tools.

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 explicitly says to use it 'as a first call at session start' so the agent can plan its evaluation strategy against available evaluators. It provides a clear context for use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative discovery tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.