MCP Server for Constraint Satisfaction Problem solving using AC-3 arc consistency and backtracking with Minimum Remaining Values heuristic
Single tool with adequate schema but critical gaps in description quality and parameter documentation. Tool name lacks action verb. Description is 156 chars (within range) but lacks WHEN/WHY guidance. Input schema present with types and descriptions, but parameters lack actionable constraints. No output schema documented. No error handling guidance. Fails multiple baseline checks: descriptions under 200 chars should be more specific; parameters lack format/range constraints; no recovery guidance for failures.
Solve a map coloring constraint satisfaction problem using AC-3 arc consistency and backtracking search
Tool name 'solve_map_color' lacks action verb. Should be 'solve_csp_map_coloring' or 'find_map_coloring_solution' to signal intent clearly.
No output schema documented. LLM cannot predict return structure. Should document: returns {solution: {[variable]: value}} or null if unsolvable.
Parameter descriptions lack actionable constraints. 'domains' says 'Dictionary mapping...' but does not specify: are values required? Can domains be empty? What happens if a domain is empty?
No error handling guidance. If CSP is unsolvable, tool returns null. LLM has no recovery path. Should return {error: 'No solution exists', suggestion: 'Try relaxing constraints or expanding domains'}.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 44 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
Description lacks WHEN/WHY context. Does not explain: when to use AC-3 vs other CSP solvers, what problem domains it solves, or prerequisites (e.g., binary constraints only).