Skip to main content
Glama

runs_create

Create a run. Omit prompt_id and provide output_column to score existing outputs by grading a pre-existing dataset column instead of generating new ones.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
prompt_idNo
tag_namesNo
dataset_idNo
max_tokensNoCap on generated tokens per row. Leave unset to use the provider client's default, which is what silently truncates long outputs and makes the judge score malformed JSON. Set it to whatever the prompt uses in production so the eval matches.
metric_idsNo
judge_modelNo
temperatureNoSampling temperature for generation, 0 to 1. Leave it unset, which is the default, and no temperature is sent at all, so the model applies its own. Most current frontier models refuse the parameter outright; set it only when you are targeting a model that honours it, such as anything served locally through Ollama. A refused value is re-sent without one and the run is flagged temperature_ignored.
output_columnNoDataset column to grade when prompt_id is omitted; defaults to "actual_output".
expected_columnNoDataset column holding each row's answer key / ground truth, graded by checks with compare_to "expected" and passed to the judge; defaults to "expected_output".
metric_group_idNoAttach the metrics belonging to this metric group (its current metric_ids). Ignored when metric_ids is also given.
judge_temperatureNoSampling temperature for the judge, 0 to 1. Defaults to 0 so re-judging the same output gives the same score. Raise it only to measure judge variance on purpose; any value above 0 makes the run's scores irreproducible.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key behavioral distinction between generation and grading existing outputs, but it does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens when conflicting parameters are provided.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences with no redundant wording. The second sentence is a bit dense but still clear, and the overall structure is effective for a tool with this complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, typical combinations of other parameters (like metric_ids or judge_model), or the relationship between dataset_id and the columns. The description focuses on only the two main modes and leaves many operational details unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaning to prompt_id and output_column by explaining their roles in the two modes, which is valuable. However, the schema already provides descriptions for about half of the 12 parameters, and the description does not compensate for the others (e.g., tag_names, metric_ids). The added value is significant for those two params but not comprehensive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a run') and adds a key conditional that distinguishes the scoring mode from the generation mode. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like runs_generate or runs_rerun by name, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context on the two primary modes: generate new outputs (provide prompt_id) or score existing outputs (omit prompt_id and provide output_column). This is actionable guidance, though it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like runs_generate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear separation across agreements, datasets, judges, metrics, prompts, runs, tags, and usage. Even similar tools like datasets_create vs datasets_create_from_url and runs_generate vs runs_rerun are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

The overwhelming majority of tools follow a consistent plural_resource_action snake_case pattern (e.g., datasets_create, metrics_update, runs_retry_failures). The only slight deviation is promptfoo_import, but it is still descriptive and does not break the overall predictability.

Tool Count1/5

With 54 tools, the server far exceeds the 25+ threshold considered too many, and approaches the 50+ extreme mismatch level. Even for a broad LLM evaluation platform, this count is excessive and likely to overwhelm agents, making tool selection more error-prone.

Completeness4/5

The toolset provides full CRUD for core resources (datasets, metrics, prompts, runs, tags) plus lifecycle operations like publish, generate, regrade, and retry. It also includes cross-cutting utilities (usage, import, provider credentials). Minor gaps exist, such as no update/delete for agreements and no cross-run response search, but these are non-essential for the primary workflows.