AgentDesk MCP
Adversarial AI quality review for LLM pipelines. Dual-reviewer consensus with anti-gaming protection. BYOK — works with Claude Code, Claude Desktop, and any MCP client.
AgentDesk MCP — Adversarial AI Review
Quality control for AI pipelines — one MCP tool. Works with Claude Code, Claude Desktop, and any MCP client.
29.5% of teams do NO evaluation of AI outputs. (LangChain Survey) Knowledge workers spend 4.3 hours/week fact-checking AI outputs. (Microsoft 2025)
AgentDesk MCP fixes this. Add independent adversarial review to any AI pipeline in 30 seconds.
Quick Start
npm (recommended)
npx agentdesk-mcp
Claude Code
claude mcp add agentdesk-mcp -- npx agentdesk-mcp
Claude Desktop
{
"mcpServers": {
"agentdesk-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "agentdesk-mcp"],
"env": { "ANTHROPIC_API_KEY": "sk-ant-..." }
}
}
}
Install from GitHub (alternative)
npm install github:Rih0z/agentdesk-mcp
Requirements
ANTHROPIC_API_KEYenvironment variable (uses your own key — BYOK)
Tools
review_output
Adversarial quality review of any AI-generated output. An independent reviewer assumes the author made mistakes and actively looks for problems.
Input:
| Parameter | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
output | Yes | The AI-generated output to review |
criteria | No | Custom review criteria |
review_type | No | Category: code, content, factual, translation, etc. |
model | No | Reviewer model (default: claude-sonnet-4-6) |
Output:
{
"verdict": "PASS | FAIL | CONDITIONAL_PASS",
"score": 82,
"issues": [
{
"severity": "high",
"category": "accuracy",
"description": "Claim about X is unsupported",
"suggestion": "Add citation or remove claim"
}
],
"checklist": [
{
"item": "Factual accuracy",
"status": "pass",
"evidence": "All statistics match cited sources"
}
],
"summary": "Overall assessment...",
"reviewer_model": "claude-sonnet-4-6"
}
review_dual
Dual adversarial review — two independent reviewers assess the output from different angles, then a merge agent combines findings.
- If either reviewer finds a critical issue → merged verdict is FAIL
- Takes the lower score
- Combines and deduplicates all issues
Use for high-stakes outputs where quality is critical.
Same parameters as review_output.
How It Works
- Adversarial prompting: The reviewer is instructed to assume mistakes were made. No benefit of the doubt.
- Evidence-based checklist: Every PASS item requires specific evidence. Items without evidence are automatically downgraded to FAIL.
- Anti-gaming validation: If >30% of checklist items lack evidence, the entire review is forced to FAIL with a capped score of 50.
- Structured output: Verdict + numeric score + categorized issues + checklist (not just "looks good").
Use Cases
- Code review: Check for bugs, security issues, performance problems
- Content review: Verify accuracy, readability, SEO, audience fit
- Factual verification: Validate claims in AI-generated text
- Translation quality: Check accuracy and naturalness
- Data extraction: Verify completeness and correctness
- Any AI output: Summaries, reports, proposals, emails, etc.
Why Not Just Ask the Same AI to Review?
Self-review has systematic leniency bias. An LLM reviewing its own output shares the same blind spots that created the errors. Research shows models are 34% more likely to use confident language when hallucinating.
AgentDesk uses a separate reviewer invocation with adversarial prompting — fundamentally different from self-review.
Comparison
| Feature | AgentDesk MCP | Manual prompt | Braintrust | DeepEval |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| One-tool setup | Yes | No | No | No |
| Adversarial review | Yes | DIY | No | No |
| Dual reviewer | Yes | DIY | No | No |
| Anti-gaming validation | Yes | No | No | No |
| No SDK required | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| MCP native | Yes | No | No | No |
Limitations
- Prompt injection: Like all LLM-as-judge systems, adversarial inputs could attempt to manipulate reviewer verdicts. The anti-gaming validation layer mitigates superficial gaming, but determined adversarial inputs remain a challenge. For high-stakes use cases, combine with deterministic validation.
- BYOK cost: Each
review_outputcall makes 1 LLM API call;review_dualmakes 3. Factor this into your pipeline costs.
Hosted API (Separate Product)
For teams that prefer HTTP integration, a hosted REST API with additional features (agent marketplace, context learning, workflows) is available at agentdesk-blue.vercel.app.
Development
git clone https://github.com/Rih0z/agentdesk-mcp.git
cd agentdesk-mcp
npm install
npm test # 35 tests
npm run build
License
MIT
Built by EZARK Consulting | Web Version
Похожие серверы
Scout Monitoring MCP
спонсорPut performance and error data directly in the hands of your AI assistant.
Alpha Vantage MCP Server
спонсорAccess financial market data: realtime & historical stock, ETF, options, forex, crypto, commodities, fundamentals, technical indicators, & more
Studio MCP
Turns any command-line interface (CLI) command into a simple StdIO-based MCP server.
REPL MCP Server
A universal REPL session manager supporting Python, Node.js, Ruby, and more, with session management and LLM-assisted recovery.
DevContainer MCP Server
Manage DevContainer environments using natural language prompts in any MCP-compatible editor.
Juspay MCP Tools
Interact with Juspay APIs for payment processing and merchant dashboard management.
Symbolic Algebra MCP Server
Perform symbolic mathematics and computer algebra using the SymPy library.
Cloudflare Remote MCP Server
A remote MCP server example deployable on Cloudflare Workers without authentication.
Remote MCP Server (Authless)
An authentication-free remote MCP server deployable on Cloudflare Workers.
Composer Package README MCP Server
Fetches Composer package README and usage information from Packagist.
MCP Rules Enforcer Zero
An MCP server that enforces rules from markdown files for AI agents. This is a zero-tool version that requires an external rules file.
Ping MCP Server
An MCP server providing on-chain AI tools for seamless interaction with the Solana blockchain.