MCP server that turns any Senior-Junior workflow into an autonomous loop with a human decision maker. Seamless integration with Cursor, Claude Code, Codex, and any MCP client.
Six tools with mixed quality. All have descriptions (10-200 chars, mostly adequate), but schemas are incomplete or missing parameter descriptions. file_read, file_write, shell_execute have basic schemas but lack detail on constraints (e.g., timeout bounds, path validation rules). autolab_cite has an enum for 'action' but no description for 'count' parameter. interactive_feedback and get_system_info lack input parameter descriptions entirely. No tool documents output schema structure. Error handling is absent, no guidance on recovery or retryability. Naming is verb-forward (file_read, shell_execute) but generic (interactive_feedback). No tool declares idempotency, destructiveness, or permissions. Average tool score: 52/100.
Search for papers, look up a DOI, or validate references.bib. Action: 'search' (find papers), 'doi' (get BibTeX from DOI), 'validate' (check .bib file).
Read the contents of a file within the project directory.
Write content to a file within the project directory. Creates parent directories as needed.
Get system environment information including OS, Python version, and environment detection.
Collect user interactive feedback with support for text, images, and command logs.
Execute a shell command in the project directory. Use for running Python scripts, installing packages, etc.
No output schemas documented. LLMs cannot plan downstream tool calls or extract structured data. file_read should document return type (string content), autolab_cite should document result structure (list of papers with fields), interactive_feedback should document response format.
Parameter descriptions missing or incomplete. 'count' in autolab_cite lacks description. interactive_feedback and get_system_info have no parameter descriptions at all. LLMs cannot infer parameter meaning from names alone.
No input validation constraints documented. shell_execute timeout defaults to 120s but no min/max bounds stated. file_read/file_write accept 'path' but no validation rules (length, allowed chars, traversal prevention) documented. Invites LLM to pass invalid or malicious input.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | D | 53 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
No error handling guidance. Tools lack recovery hints. shell_execute may timeout or fail, no guidance on retry, partial results, or fallback. file_write may fail due to permissions, no actionable error message template.
No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). file_write and shell_execute are destructive/irreversible but not marked. LLMs cannot distinguish safe from risky tools without explicit hints.