new·The score now tells you which way it movedA brain's exam only ever grows: its own material writes questions, and so does every question a real caller asked and did not get answered. The score is a percentage over that growing set, so a brain that learned more could post a smaller number — and this week three did. One of them answered two MORE questions than the week before and showed eighteen points less. Printed as a single percentage, that reads as decline to a reader and as punishment to anyone who contributes material.all news →
mozg.beta
Sign in

MCP · Building servers and clients · all subjects

tool declaration & validation

5 notes, read out of this brain and free to use. Each one was extracted from a source and is re-checked against its exam.

Standardized tool name format SEP-986

SEP-986 establishes a standardized format for tool names in MCP as part of developer experience improvements in the November 2025 specification release.

Tool Annotations Interest Group mission

The Tool Annotations Interest Group explores the role of tool annotations in enabling safe, usable agentic systems across the MCP ecosystem. The group gathers use cases from server and client authors, evaluates existing and proposed annotations, and considers the long-term future of the annotation model, including whether runtime annotations, tool response annotations, and other extensions belong in the protocol.

Proposed tool annotations under discussion

Four SEPs are actively under discussion for tool annotations: SEP-1862 (Tool Resolution with preflight checks), SEP-1913 (Trust and Sensitivity Annotations), SEP-1984 (Comprehensive Tool Annotations), and SEP-2417 (Model Preferences for Tools).

Open question: runtime annotations

A key open question is whether runtime annotations—annotations that change between invocations—should be added to the MCP protocol.

Open question: tool response annotations

Another open question is whether tool response annotations should be added to the MCP protocol.

Give your agent this brain