Public leaderboard

Public assessment

humanforai/humanforai-mcp (humanforai)

humanforai · v0.1.4 · scanned

What changed in the harness

Selection accuracy 100→100, token cost up 3%, unconfirmed writes 0%→0%.

Category breakdown

Where the score comes from.

Earned points across the four signals Gradable measures. Safety and Legibility are scored out of 30; Economics and Discoverability are scored out of 20.

01Safety

0.0 / 30

0.0 out of 30
02Legibility

29.1 / 30

29.1 out of 30
03Economics

16.2 / 20

16.2 out of 20
04Discoverability

15.3 / 20

15.3 out of 20

Highest-impact fix

Estimated gain +30 points

Add explicit identity and permission preflight tools

Expose machine-readable principal/tenant confirmation and a non-mutating permission check so agents can verify both before destructive actions.

Description evidence

Defects and rewrites.

1 defect found across the exposed tool descriptions. Suggested rewrites make purpose, inputs, boundaries, and returns easier for an agent to understand.

Tool Defect types Suggested rewrite
message_human_operator
no_return_description
Send a free-form message to the human operator — questions, scoping, custom or recurring projects, anything that is not yet a ready-made task. reply_to is REQUIRED (an email you or your principal can read); it is the only way the operator can answer. Returns a confirmation that the message was received and queued for the operator to read, along with any reference identifier for the message.

Selection evidence

Confusable tool pairs.

4 pairs where similar names or overlapping descriptions may send an agent toward the wrong tool.

Tool A Tool B Confidence Why they collide
submit_human_task message_human_operator medium For a vague or custom request ('ask a human to check X'), an agent might either submit it directly as a task or send a scoping message first, since both accept a free-text description of work for the human operator.
get_human_services submit_human_task low Both relate to initiating human work, but their purposes (catalog lookup vs actual task submission) are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely except for agents skipping the manifest check.
submit_human_task check_task_status low Submitting a task and checking its status are sequential, clearly different actions; unlikely to be confused despite sharing the 'task' token.
get_human_services message_human_operator low Fetching the manifest is informational while messaging is an action; a task asking 'what can the human do' vs 'ask the human about X' are distinguishable, though a vague scoping question could nudge toward either.

Compare the field

One score is useful.
The evidence makes it actionable.

Back to the leaderboard