Skip to main content
Glama

eDiscovery Decoder News/Calc

Validate Sample Design

validate_sample_design
Read-onlyIdempotent

QC a TAR validation sampling plan: check whether it has the documented elements needed for a defensibility discussion (population, sample size, confidence level, sampling frame/method, randomization, etc.) and flag what is missing or inconsistent. Use to sanity-check a sampling protocol before relying on it. Reviews metadata only — not a legal sufficiency opinion.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "population_size": "<population_size>",
      "sample_size": "<sample_size>"
    },
    "name": "validate_sample_design"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
random_seedNo
sample_sizeYes
generated_atNo
sampling_frameNo
margin_of_errorNo
population_sizeYes
sampling_methodNo
confidence_levelNo
excluded_population_sizeNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issuesYes
statusYes
summaryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed11 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / excluded_population_size / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / excluded_population_size / minimum
      Added value: +-9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / population_size / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / population_size / minimum
      Added value: +-9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / sample_size / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / sample_size / minimum
      Added value: +-9007199254740991
    • addedOutput schema / properties / summary / properties / populationSize / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedOutput schema / properties / summary / properties / populationSize / minimum
      Added value: +-9007199254740991
    • addedOutput schema / properties / summary / properties / sampleSize / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedOutput schema / properties / summary / properties / sampleSize / minimum
      Added value: +-9007199254740991
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds meaningful context beyond that by declaring the review is metadata-only and explicitly not a legal sufficiency opinion. It does not discuss any failure modes or how strictly inconsistencies are judged, but the return shape is covered by the output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the usage cue and scope caveat. Efficient overall, though the 'etc.' in the element list and the trailing disclaimer slightly dilute precision.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With rich annotations and an output schema present, the description only needs to establish purpose, when to use, and scope limits — all of which it does. An agent can decide to call it and interpret the result without further information.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It names several inputs obliquely (population, sample size, confidence level, sampling frame/method) but leaves margin_of_error, excluded_population_size, random_seed and generated_at unmentioned, and 'randomization' does not map cleanly to the random_seed parameter.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('QC a TAR validation sampling plan') and enumerates exactly what is checked (population, sample size, confidence level, sampling frame/method, randomization) and what is produced ('flag what is missing or inconsistent'). This clearly separates it from the calculate_* siblings, which produce numbers rather than review an existing plan.

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?

Gives a clear timing cue: 'Use to sanity-check a sampling protocol before relying on it.' It also bounds scope with 'Reviews metadata only — not a legal sufficiency opinion,' which tells the agent what this tool will not do. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when-not to call it beyond that scope caveat.

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.

Resources