T1/T2 Protocol
LocalAbout T1/T2 Protocol
T1/T2 Protocol is a stdlib-only Python reference MCP server for structured reasoning and heterogeneous validation. It is intended for MCP hosts that need question decomposition, cross-model review, and deterministic checks, and is explicitly not a production security product.
Key features
- 01Decompose questions into four tiers
- 02Generate cross-model evaluation prompts
- 03Check answer structure deterministically
- 04Set evaluation locale and weighting
- 05Limit recursive T2 evaluation
Use cases
- 01Structure an ambiguous decision question
- 02Review a draft answer with another model
- 03Check structured output before reuse
MCP support
Exposes t1_protocol, t2_protocol, and checksum as MCP tools over JSON-RPC on stdio. The first two return prompt templates for the host LLM; checksum returns deterministic validation results.
Configuration
Local server config is the same for every client. Copy it into your client’s MCP config file.
Tools
3Saved tool list · updated 3w ago
| Parameter | Type | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | string | No | Output language: 'en' (default) or 'zh' |
| question | string | Yes | The original question to translate |
| weight_hint | string | No | Optional evaluation weight hint. English: fact-first, efficiency-first, cost-first, robustness-first, general-first. Chinese: 事实优先, 效率优先, 成本优先, 鲁棒性优先, 通用优先. |
Details
From the project READMET1/T2 Protocol — Heterogeneous Validation for MCP
中文文档 · MCP Registry entry (io.github.Fauxetine/t1-t2-protocol)
Reference implementation. This is a stdlib-only MCP reference server for structured reasoning discipline — not a production security product. Evaluate your own threat model before deploying in sensitive environments. Unlike official Python MCP servers, it does not use the
mcpSDK; it speaks JSON-RPC over stdio directly.
T1/T2 is an MCP server that makes AI reasoning verifiable, auditable, and trustworthy — by decomposing ambiguous questions into structured tiers (T1), then validating answers through cross-model evaluation (T2), with a deterministic checksum layer that doesn't depend on any LLM.
Why?
When an LLM checks its own answer, it uses the same training data, the same reasoning preferences, and the same systematic biases. Self-reflection cannot catch its own blind spots.
T1/T2 introduces heterogeneous validation: the model that produces the answer and the model that evaluates it should be different. Their different training distributions cover each other's blind spots.
Tools
| Tool | Function | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| t1_protocol | Decomposes ambiguous questions into L1 (facts) / L2 (assumptions) / L3 (hypotheses) / L4 (unknowns) | Forces structured reasoning before answering |
| t2_protocol | Evaluates answer quality from another model's perspective (qualitative five-level confidence) | Catches blind spots self-reflection misses |
| checksum | Deterministic structural validation — pure regex, zero LLM dependency | Safety that doesn't scale with intelligence |
How tools return data:
t1_protocolandt2_protocolreturn structured prompt templates for your MCP host's LLM to execute. Onlychecksumreturns deterministic JSON (checksum_passed,errors).
Tool inputs (MCP schema)
t1_protocol
| Input | Type | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
question | string | yes | The ambiguous question to decompose |
locale | string | no | en (default) or zh |
weight_hint | string | no | fact-first, efficiency-first, cost-first, robustness-first, general-first (or Chinese equivalents) |
t2_protocol
| Input | Type | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
answer | string | yes | Text to evaluate (often the host LLM's draft answer) |
locale | string | no | en (default) or zh |
weight_hint | string | no | Same values as t1_protocol |
checksum
| Input | Type | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
text | string | yes | Structured answer text to validate |
Returns JSON: {"checksum_passed": bool, "errors": [...]}.
Quick Start
Requirements
- Python 3.10+
- An MCP client: Cursor, Claude Desktop, Windsurf, or any MCP-compatible host
Install
From PyPI (recommended):
pip install "t1-t2-protocol>=0.1.0"
From source (development):
git clone https://github.com/Fauxetine/t1-t2-protocol.git
cd t1-t2-protocol
pip install -e ".[dev]"
T1T2_DISABLE_COUNTERS=1 python -m pytest tests/ -v
Or run directly without installing:
python src/t1_t2_mcp_server.py # Windows
python3 src/t1_t2_mcp_server.py # macOS / Linux
Configure
After pip install, use the console script in MCP config (recommended):
{
"mcpServers": {
"t1-t2-protocol": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "t1-t2-protocol"
}
}
}
Cursor — .cursor/mcp.json (same as above).
Claude Desktop — claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"t1-t2-protocol": {
"command": "t1-t2-protocol"
}
}
}
From source (no pip install) — point at the script:
{
"mcpServers": {
"t1-t2-protocol": {
"type": "stdio",
"command": "python",
"args": ["C:/path/to/t1-t2-protocol/src/t1_t2_mcp_server.py"]
}
}
}
On macOS/Linux use "command": "python3" instead of "python".
Verify it works
- Restart or reload your MCP host after editing config.
- Confirm three tools appear:
t1_protocol,t2_protocol,checksum. - Call
t1_protocolwith{"question": "Should we adopt microservices?", "locale": "en"}— you should receive a structured T1 prompt template. - Call
checksumwith sample[L1 Facts]…---text — you should receive JSON withchecksum_passed.
Usage
T1: Structure a vague question
Call t1_protocol with your question. The host LLM receives a structured prompt template with four tiers:
Input: {"question": "Should we migrate our monolith to microservices?"}
Output: Prompt template instructing the host to produce:
[L1 Facts] Team size, codebase size, current stack
[L2 Assumptions] Expected benefits that need verification
[L3 Hypotheses] Testable claims about migration risk
[L4 Unknown] Future growth trajectory
[Core Question] The precise feasibility question
T2: Cross-validate a decision
Call t2_protocol with a decision or answer text. Returns an evaluation prompt for the host LLM:
Input: {"answer": "Decision text for approach A..."}
Output: Prompt template requesting:
Confidence: high | medium-high | medium | medium-low | low
Adoption table with:
✅ Adopt — verified conclusions (L1)
⚠️ Reserved — needs more evidence (L2)
❌ N/A — blind spots to address
checksum: Validate output structure
Call checksum with structured text. It returns pass/fail based on deterministic rules:
Input: "[L1 Facts]\n1. ...\n[L2 Assumptions]\n1. ...\n---"
Output: {"checksum_passed": true, "errors": []}
Full pipeline
Vague question → T1 structured decomposition → Decision based on structure → checksum (optional) → T2 validation → Refined decision
For time-sensitive factual claims, search on the caller side before T2 — see Caller-side web verification (v2.6).
Configuration
Locale
Both t1_protocol and t2_protocol accept an optional locale parameter:
| Value | Output |
|---|---|
en (default) | English templates |
zh | Chinese templates |
Example: {"question": "...", "locale": "zh"}
Weight hints
Both t1_protocol and t2_protocol accept an optional weight_hint parameter to bias evaluation criteria:
| Weight | Effect |
|---|---|
事实优先 / fact-first | Prioritizes factual accuracy |
效率优先 / efficiency-first | Prioritizes efficiency |
成本优先 / cost-first | Prioritizes cost |
鲁棒性优先 / robustness-first | Prioritizes robustness |
通用优先 / general-first | No specific bias |
Recursion protection
T2 automatically detects recursion depth and terminates at depth >= 3, where marginal information gain drops below 5%.
Design Philosophy
See docs/philosophy.md for the full design rationale.
Core tenets:
- Separate intelligence from trust — AI capability and AI safety should be guaranteed by different systems
- Heterogeneous over self-referential — Cross-model validation is more reliable than self-reflection
- Deterministic over probabilistic — What can be checked by code should not be left to model judgment
Examples
See examples/ for step-by-step walkthroughs:
Positioning
| Project | Layer | What it does | T1/T2 relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sequential Thinking (official MCP) | Caller-side chain-of-thought | One model logs iterative steps | Complementary — T1 adds L1–L4 tiers + T2 cross-model review |
| ThoughtProof / verdict APIs | Server-side verification | APPROVE/DENY/UNCERTAIN with confidence | Complementary — T1/T2 structures reasoning before verdict APIs act |
| Self-reflection / prompt chains | Same model | Re-reads or re-prompts its own output | Replaced — heterogeneous validation catches shared blind spots |
| Tool integrity (e.g. Phionyx) | Transport / tool schema | Detects tool poisoning, schema drift | Orthogonal — T1/T2 does not secure tool definitions |
T1/T2 is a stdlib reference implementation for MCP Discussion #2574-style reasoning discipline: structure first (T1), cross-validate second (T2), checksum what code can verify. It is not a signed verdict API and not a security scanner.
Versioning
Two version numbers — do not conflate them:
| Example | Meaning | |
|---|---|---|
| Package (PyPI) | 0.1.0 | Distribution lifecycle. 0.x = experimental (SemVer, FastAPI policy). |
| Protocol (spec) | v2.5 | T1/T2 tool semantics in server output footer. Caller-side web verify docs use v2.6. |
Recommended install: pip install "t1-t2-protocol>=0.1.0". Erroneous PyPI releases 2.5.2–2.5.4 are yanked.
License
Apache License 2.0 — see LICENSE.
Built for the MCP ecosystem. Part of a broader exploration into AI safety through deterministic architecture.
Links
- Contributing
- MCP Registry —
io.github.Fauxetine/t1-t2-protocol - Security policy
- Changelog
- Design philosophy
- Caller-side web verification v2.6
- Agent / MCP host instructions
Comments
New to MCP?
From what the protocol is to installing your first server, these answers cover most first questions.
An open protocol that defines how AI applications connect to external tools and data in a uniform way. Clients talk to the model; MCP servers provide tools, resources and prompt templates. They exchange standard messages, so one server can be reused by many clients.