mcp-si-radar

si_evaluate_rule10

Evaluate a .si domain against GEMINI Rule 10 by comparing Slovenian real-economy baseline with superintelligence option value, then get a HOLD, OPTIONAL, or AVOID verdict.

Instructions

Evaluates a .si domain against GEMINI Rule 10 (Two-Reading Rule: Slovenian Real Economy Baseline vs Superintelligence Option Value). Returns actionable verdict: HOLD / OPTIONAL / AVOID.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "si_evaluate_rule10"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	The .si domain to evaluate (e.g. 'compute.si', 'piloting.si', 'kinging.si')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the behavioral output shape by naming the three verdict categories, which is genuine value, but it omits any note on determinism, cost, permissions, or what the underlying rule actually evaluates.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the return contract stated second. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, and it does name the verdicts and the rule applied. However, it never explains what distinguishes HOLD from OPTIONAL from AVOID, leaving an agent unable to interpret or act on the result without more context.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the domain argument with examples. The description adds no syntax, format, or case-sensitivity detail beyond what the schema provides, making 3 (baseline) appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Uses a specific verb (evaluates) on a specific resource (.si domain) under a named rule, and the verdict enumeration (HOLD/OPTIONAL/AVOID) makes the output tangible. It reads as distinct from siblings like si_check_domain or si_fast_checkout, though the proprietary 'GEMINI Rule 10' framing is opaque without external context.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus si_check_domain, si_fast_checkout, or si_batch_check, nor any precondition or exclusion. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server