Public leaderboard

Public assessment

Daichi-Kudo/llm-advisor-mcp (llm-advisor-mcp)

llm-advisor-mcp · v0.4.0 · scanned

What changed in the harness

Selection accuracy 100%, destructive-action safety rate 100% (baseline only -- no rewrite pass applied).

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

30.0 / 30

30.0 out of 30
02Legibility

29.2 / 30

29.2 out of 30
03Economics

20.0 / 20

20.0 out of 20
04Discoverability

13.6 / 20

13.6 out of 20

Highest-impact fix

Estimated gain +6 points

Make target tools discoverable on the first call

Clarify tool names, decision boundaries, and required argument schemas so an agent can choose and construct the target call without exploratory steps.

Description evidence

Defects and rewrites.

0 defects 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
No description defects were flagged in this assessment.

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
compare_models recommend_model medium A natural task like 'which of these two models should I use for coding under my budget' names candidate models (fits compare_models) but asks for a choice driven by use case/budget (fits recommend_model), so an agent could plausibly select either tool.
list_top_models recommend_model medium A bare query like 'what are the best models for coding or vision?' satisfies both list_top_models(category=...) returning a ranked table and recommend_model(use_case=...) returning picks with reasoning, and neither description forces a disambiguating constraint.
get_model_info compare_models low A task such as 'tell me about claude-sonnet-4.6 and gpt-5.1, including benchmarks and pricing' could be answered either by fetching per-model info or via a side-by-side comparison; shared capability/pricing vocabulary blurs the boundary.
list_top_models compare_models low 'Compare the top coding models' involves both ranking and comparison without naming models, so the agent might pick list_top_models for a ranked table or call compare_models with guessed model IDs.

Compare the field

One score is useful.
The evidence makes it actionable.

Back to the leaderboard