Second Brain

Codify "no theoretical confidence on MCP capability" as durable EA feedback memory. Future MCP-readiness questions answered as two distinct facts kept separate: (1) inventory — named tools that exist;

2 min read

Codify “no theoretical confidence on MCP capability” as durable EA feedback memory. Future MCP-readiness questions answered as two distinct facts kept separate: (1) inventory — named tools that exist;

Decision

Codify “no theoretical confidence on MCP capability” as durable EA feedback memory. Future MCP-readiness questions answered as two distinct facts kept separate: (1) inventory — named tools that exist; (2) reliability — unknown until audited. No percentages, no confidence numbers, no “fully capable” language unless backed by audit evidence.

Rationale

Grounded in 3 evidence items + first-principles decomposition + bias scan run this session. (1) AJ testimony [reliability 0.95] — past sessions’ confidence claims broke under real deployment. (2) Anchoring bias detected [reliability 0.85] in this session’s own reasoning trail — the 90% was anchored on first-seen tool list. (3) Existing standing directive [reliability 1.0] “Capture MCP tool limitations” structurally presumes failures occur, making theoretical confidence inconsistent with operating model. First-principles decomposition surfaced the hidden assumption: “tool present in inventory → tool works end-to-end.” That assumption is unsupported. The irreducible components of honest capability assessment are inventory (cheap, observable) + reliability (expensive, requires audit). Conflating them is the bug. The rule separates them.

Alternatives Rejected

Outcome

Pending

Graph View

Backlinks