Skip to main content
Glama
xiaobenyang-com

Structured-Argumentation

by xiaobenyang-com
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

认知增强MCP服务器 Structured Argumentation

一组模型上下文协议服务器，为大型语言模型提供认知增强工具。 A group of model context protocol servers provide cognitive enhancement tools for large language models.## 工具列表 Tool List

本MCP服务封装下列工具，可让模型通过标准化接口调用以下功能。 本MCP服务封装下列工具，可让模型通过标准化接口调用以下功能。

工具 Tool

描述 Description

structuredArgumentation

A detailed tool for systematic dialectical reasoning and argument analysis. This tool helps analyze complex questions through formal argumentation structures. It facilitates the creation, critique, and synthesis of competing arguments. When to use this tool: - Evaluating competing perspectives and claims - Analyzing complex ethical dilemmas - Assessing policy proposals with multiple stakeholders - Exploring scientific hypotheses and counter-arguments Key features: - Break down arguments into claims, premises, and conclusions - Track relationships between arguments - Represent objections and rebuttals - Facilitate dialectical progression through thesis-antithesis-synthesis - Evaluate argument strengths and weaknesses - Visualize argument structures Parameters explained: - claim: The central proposition being argued - premises: Supporting evidence or assumptions - conclusion: The logical consequence of accepting the claim - argumentType: Whether this is a thesis, antithesis, synthesis, objection, or rebuttal - confidence: Your confidence level in this argument (0.0-1.0) - respondsTo: ID of an argument this directly responds to - supports/contradicts: IDs of arguments this supports or contradicts - strengths/weaknesses: Notable strong or weak points of the argument - nextArgumentNeeded: Whether another argument is needed in the dialectic

检查服务 ## Inspector

工具在线测试： https://mcp.xiaobenyang.com/inspector/1777316659309571

Online Tool test https://mcp.xiaobenyang.com/inspector/1777316659309571

Related MCP server: Logic MCP Server

服务配置 MCP Server Config

如何获取 XBY-APIKEY ？ How to get XBY-APIKEY ?

访问小笨羊科技网站 https://xiaobenyang.com，注册用户即可获得APIKEY Visit XiaoBenYang website https://xiaobenyang.com, register and get the APIKEY.

SSE

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "认知增强MCP服务器": {
      "headers": {
        "XBY-APIKEY": "<YOUR_XBY_APIKEY>"
      },
      "type": "sse",
      "url": "https://mcp.xiaobenyang.com/1777316659309571/sse"
    }
  }
}

STREAMABLE HTTP

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "认知增强MCP服务器": {
      "headers": {
        "XBY-APIKEY": "<YOUR_XBY_APIKEY>"
      },
      "type": "streamable_http",
      "url": "https://mcp.xiaobenyang.com/1777316659309571/mcp"
    }
  }
}

STDIO

{
    "mcpServers": {
        "认知增强MCP服务器": {
          "command": "npx",
          "args": [
            "-y",
            "xiaobenyang-mcp"
          ],
          "env": {
            "XBY_APIKEY": "<YOUR_XBY_APIKEY>",
            "mcpId": "1777316659309571",
          },
          "transport": "stdio"
        }
      }
}

Available Tools

1 tool
structuredArgumentationstructuredArgumentationA

A detailed tool for systematic dialectical reasoning and argument analysis. This tool helps analyze complex questions through formal argumentation structures. It facilitates the creation, critique, and synthesis of competing arguments.

When to use this tool:

  • Evaluating competing perspectives and claims

  • Analyzing complex ethical dilemmas

  • Assessing policy proposals with multiple stakeholders

  • Exploring scientific hypotheses and counter-arguments

Key features:

  • Break down arguments into claims, premises, and conclusions

  • Track relationships between arguments

  • Represent objections and rebuttals

  • Facilitate dialectical progression through thesis-antithesis-synthesis

  • Evaluate argument strengths and weaknesses

  • Visualize argument structures

Parameters explained:

  • claim: The central proposition being argued

  • premises: Supporting evidence or assumptions

  • conclusion: The logical consequence of accepting the claim

  • argumentType: Whether this is a thesis, antithesis, synthesis, objection, or rebuttal

  • confidence: Your confidence level in this argument (0.0-1.0)

  • respondsTo: ID of an argument this directly responds to

  • supports/contradicts: IDs of arguments this supports or contradicts

  • strengths/weaknesses: Notable strong or weak points of the argument

  • nextArgumentNeeded: Whether another argument is needed in the dialectic

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYes
premisesYes
conclusionYes
argumentIdNo
argumentTypeYes
confidenceYes
respondsToNo
supportsNo
contradictsNo
strengthsNo
weaknessesNo
nextArgumentNeededYes
suggestedNextTypesNo

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes behavioral traits like 'facilitates creation, critique, and synthesis' and 'evaluates argument strengths,' which imply mutation and analysis capabilities. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the tool returns (e.g., structured output, visualizations as mentioned but not explained). The description adds value but is incomplete for a complex 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 well-structured with sections (purpose, usage, features, parameters), front-loading key information. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool but includes some redundancy (e.g., 'facilitates dialectical progression' could be condensed). Most sentences earn their place, though minor trimming is possible.

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?

Given high complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage, features, and parameters well, but lacks output details (what the tool returns, e.g., analysis results or visualizations) and behavioral specifics like error cases. For a tool with rich input but no structured output, more context on results is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It includes a 'Parameters explained' section that defines all 13 parameters (e.g., 'claim: The central proposition,' 'confidence: Your confidence level'), adding clear meaning beyond the bare schema. This fully addresses the coverage gap, making parameters understandable for an AI agent.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'systematic dialectical reasoning and argument analysis' with specific verbs like 'analyze,' 'create,' 'critique,' and 'synthesize.' It distinguishes the tool's focus on formal argumentation structures, though without sibling tools, differentiation isn't tested. The purpose is specific but slightly abstract, lacking concrete examples of what the tool outputs.

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 includes a 'When to use this tool' section with four explicit scenarios (e.g., evaluating competing perspectives, analyzing ethical dilemmas), providing clear context for application. However, it lacks exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when not to use it, or comparisons to other reasoning tools), and with no sibling tools, alternative guidance isn't applicable.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedstructuredArgumentation
Deploy Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools. The single tool 'structuredArgumentation' has a clearly defined purpose for systematic dialectical reasoning and argument analysis, so agents cannot misselect among non-existent alternatives.

Naming Consistency5/5

Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name 'structuredArgumentation' follows a clear and descriptive pattern (adjective+noun), and there are no other tools to compare it against for inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is generally too few for a server's purpose, especially one as broad as 'Structured-Argumentation' which involves complex reasoning tasks. While the tool is feature-rich, having only one tool limits flexibility and forces all operations through a single interface, which feels thin for the apparent scope.

Completeness3/5

The tool covers a wide range of argumentation features (creation, critique, synthesis, visualization), but as a single tool, it may lack granular operations. For example, there are no separate tools for specific tasks like listing arguments, updating confidence scores, or managing argument hierarchies, which could lead to inefficiencies or dead ends in complex workflows.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Logic MCP Server

    Mnehmos
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    Not graded
    maintenance
    A backend server that executes advanced logic primitives and cognitive operations through the Model Context Protocol, allowing integration with various LLM providers for reasoning, data processing, and structured thought processing.
    29
    -

  • MCP Memory Server

    StevenWangler
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that provides knowledge graph-based persistent memory for LLMs, allowing them to store, retrieve, and reason about information across multiple conversations and sessions.
    9
    152,087
    2
    MIT

  • Enhanced Architecture MCP

    autoexecbatman
    F
    license
    C
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A collection of Model Context Protocol servers providing advanced capabilities for AI assistants including professional accuracy enforcement, tool safety protocols, user preference management, and intelligent context monitoring.
    5
    -