agentdesk-mcp
Adversarial AI review API — independent AI reviews another AI's output. Stop LLMs from grading their own homework. Provides automated quality assurance for AI-generated code, content, and other outputs through independent review pipelines.
README
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
推荐服务器
Baidu Map
百度地图核心API现已全面兼容MCP协议,是国内首家兼容MCP协议的地图服务商。
Playwright MCP Server
一个模型上下文协议服务器,它使大型语言模型能够通过结构化的可访问性快照与网页进行交互,而无需视觉模型或屏幕截图。
Magic Component Platform (MCP)
一个由人工智能驱动的工具,可以从自然语言描述生成现代化的用户界面组件,并与流行的集成开发环境(IDE)集成,从而简化用户界面开发流程。
Audiense Insights MCP Server
通过模型上下文协议启用与 Audiense Insights 账户的交互,从而促进营销洞察和受众数据的提取和分析,包括人口统计信息、行为和影响者互动。
VeyraX
一个单一的 MCP 工具,连接你所有喜爱的工具:Gmail、日历以及其他 40 多个工具。
graphlit-mcp-server
模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器实现了 MCP 客户端与 Graphlit 服务之间的集成。 除了网络爬取之外,还可以将任何内容(从 Slack 到 Gmail 再到播客订阅源)导入到 Graphlit 项目中,然后从 MCP 客户端检索相关内容。
Kagi MCP Server
一个 MCP 服务器,集成了 Kagi 搜索功能和 Claude AI,使 Claude 能够在回答需要最新信息的问题时执行实时网络搜索。
e2b-mcp-server
使用 MCP 通过 e2b 运行代码。
Neon MCP Server
用于与 Neon 管理 API 和数据库交互的 MCP 服务器
Exa MCP Server
模型上下文协议(MCP)服务器允许像 Claude 这样的 AI 助手使用 Exa AI 搜索 API 进行网络搜索。这种设置允许 AI 模型以安全和受控的方式获取实时的网络信息。