agent-reasoning-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

evaluate_situation

Ingest a situation snapshot, score candidate actions by expected utility against active weights, and return prioritized recommendations.

Instructions

Ingest multi-modal situation snapshot, compute expected utilities against active weights, and output prioritized action recommendations (actions: snapshot, quick). Use evaluate_situation instead of assess_risk when ranking candidate actions across multi-attribute utility dimensions rather than calculating isolated threat probabilities.

Returns ranked candidate actions, expected utility scores, and top recommendation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	Snapshot evaluation mode or quick text context: snapshot, quick
`project`	No	Target project slug
`snapshot`	No	Normalized SituationSnapshot with world, vision, state, and vitals
`trace_id`	No	Distributed trace ID
`session_id`	No	Linked state-memory session ID
`quick_context`	No	Text summary of current situation for quick evaluation
`lookahead_depth`	No	Bounded heuristic lookahead plies (e.g. 2-3 plies, discount gamma=0.85)
`utility_profile`	No	Named utility profile to score against (defaults to active)
`candidate_actions`	No	Candidate actions to score and rank

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.1Oct 1, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / action / description

Previous value: -"Snapshot evaluation mode or quick text context"New value: +"Snapshot evaluation mode or quick text context: snapshot, quick"

addedInput schema / properties / action / enum

Added value: +[
+  "snapshot",
+  "quick"
+]

Changed17 schema fields changedv0.2.1Sep 24, 2026
- removedInput schema / $schema
```
Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
```
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / action / description
```
Added value: +"Snapshot evaluation mode or quick text context"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / action / enum
```
Removed value: -[
-  "snapshot",
-  "quick"
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / candidate_actions / description
```
Added value: +"Candidate actions to score and rank"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / candidate_actions / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```
- removedInput schema / properties / candidate_actions / items / properties / parameters / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```
- removedInput schema / properties / candidate_actions / items / properties / parameters / properties
```
Removed value: -{}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / lookahead_depth
```
Added value: +{
+  "description": "Bounded heuristic lookahead plies (e.g. 2-3 plies, discount gamma=0.85)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / project / description
```
Added value: +"Target project slug"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / quick_context / description
```
Added value: +"Text summary of current situation for quick evaluation"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / session_id / description
```
Added value: +"Linked state-memory session ID"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / snapshot / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```
- addedInput schema / properties / snapshot / description
```
Added value: +"Normalized SituationSnapshot with world, vision, state, and vitals"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / snapshot / properties
```
Removed value: -{}
```
- addedInput schema / properties / trace_id / description
```
Added value: +"Distributed trace ID"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / utility_profile / description
```
Added value: +"Named utility profile to score against (defaults to active)"
```
First observedv0.1.2Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is already supplied. The description adds useful return-shape context (ranked candidate actions, expected utility scores, top recommendation), but says nothing about what state is persisted or whether trace/session records are written, which matters for a non-read-only 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?

It is front-loaded with the core verb sequence, then the routing rule, then the return values, with no filler sentences. The utility/decision-theory terminology is dense but each sentence carries information.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with nested objects, an enum mode switch and no output schema, the description does cover the return values and the key routing decision. It leaves the role of trace_id, session_id and project unaddressed, but those are documented in the schema, so the gap is minor.

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% across 9 parameters, so the schema already explains action, snapshot, quick_context, lookahead_depth, utility_profile and candidate_actions. The description adds only the two enum mode names and the notion of scoring against active weights, which is marginal beyond the structured fields.

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 names a specific pipeline of verbs and resources: ingest a multi-modal snapshot, compute expected utilities against active weights, and output prioritized action recommendations, with the modes (snapshot, quick) called out. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling assess_risk, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

It states an explicit routing rule: use evaluate_situation rather than assess_risk when ranking candidate actions across multi-attribute utility dimensions instead of computing isolated threat probabilities. That is a genuine when-to-use/when-not rule, though it covers only one sibling out of many and gives no prerequisites or preconditions for the modes.

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

Deploy Server

evaluate_situation

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools