Open-source stdio bridge to the keyless five-tool African Market OS MVR remote MCP preflight
This server is fundamentally non-functional as an MCP implementation. No tool definitions are visible in the provided source code. The repo appears to be an SDK wrapper around a remote MVR API service, not an actual MCP server with registered tools. The packages/mvr-mcp-bridge/src/index.mjs file is truncated mid-function and does not show any tool registration, schema definitions, or parameter documentation. The five tools listed (mvr_first_call, mvr_entity_resolve, mvr_evidence_completeness, mvr_context_compile, mvr_decision_check) are referenced only in a Python file path and do not appear to be implemented in the TypeScript MCP bridge code. Without visible tool definitions, parameter schemas, or descriptions, the server cannot be evaluated against the 54 Agentic Tool Patterns.
No tool definitions visible in source code. The MCP bridge (packages/mvr-mcp-bridge/src/index.mjs) is truncated and does not show tool registration, input schemas, or descriptions. Tools are inferred from a Python file path, not from actual MCP SDK registrations.
Missing input schemas for all tools. Per HARD SCORING RULE: if a tool has NO input schema visible, its schema score MUST be 0. No JSON Schema definitions, parameter types, or constraints are provided in the source.
Missing tool descriptions. Per HARD SCORING RULE: if a tool has NO description, its description score MUST be 0. No documentation of when or why to call each tool.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | F | 20 | 2025-06-18+ | v2 |
Tool names lack clear action verbs or are ambiguous. 'mvr_first_call' does not convey what action it performs. 'mvr_entity_resolve' could be clearer as 'resolve_entity' or 'lookup_entity'. Names should start with clear action verbs (get_, search_, update_, create_, etc.).
No output schemas documented. LLMs cannot know what fields to expect from tool responses. This prevents chaining and structured data extraction.
No error handling guidance. If a tool fails, the LLM receives no direction on what to do next: retry, ask user, or abandon. Error responses must tell the LLM how to proceed.