Clearbar model verdicts

Get one verdict: cheapest passing model, cost, failures

get_verdict

Read-onlyIdempotent

The full verdict for one task: the cheapest model that clears the bar, its pass rate and cost per successful task in US dollars, the baseline model it is compared with, every candidate's status, plus links to the verdict page, the run file (JSON) and the script that re-runs it. Get the slug from list_verdicts.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_verdict"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	Verdict slug from list_verdicts, for example sms-spam.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	Verdict slug, the key for get_verdict.
`task`	Yes	Task type, for example classification.
`title`	Yes
`answer`	Yes	One-sentence verdict in plain words, with the price date.
`ran_at`	No
`app_url`	Yes
`dataset`	No	Public dataset behind the run: name, rows, source, licence.
`app_note`	No
`pass_bar`	Yes	Pass-rate threshold the cheapest model has to clear (0 to 1).
`pass_rate`	No
`candidates`	Yes
`saving_pct`	No
`verdict_url`	Yes	The verdict page, with the evidence.
`run_file_url`	Yes	The run file (JSON) to check the figures.
`verdict_kind`	Yes	switch (a cheaper model passes) or keep (the baseline is already cheapest).
`baseline_model`	Yes
`rerun_script_url`	No	Script that re-runs the verdict; null when none is published.
`price_snapshot_at`	No
`baseline_pass_rate`	No
`cheapest_passing_model`	Yes	The cheapest model that clears the bar; null when none does.
`cost_per_successful_task_usd`	Yes	US dollars per successful task, retries and failures counted.
`baseline_cost_per_successful_task_usd`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them by naming the concrete artifacts returned (verdict page link, run file JSON, re-run script), which tells the agent what downstream resources this call unlocks.

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 core result and ending with the actionable prerequisite. The middle clause is a dense enumeration, but every listed item is a distinct piece of returned data rather than filler.

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 an output schema present the description needn't re-specify return shapes, annotations carry the safety profile, and the single parameter is fully documented in schema plus prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a worked example ('sms-spam'), so the schema baseline of 3 applies. The description only reinforces provenance ('from list_verdicts') without adding format or validation meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('full verdict for one task') and enumerates the payload contents: cheapest passing model, pass rate, cost per successful task, baseline, candidate statuses, and links. That scope is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_verdicts, which supplies slugs rather than verdicts.

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 closing sentence, 'Get the slug from list_verdicts,' tells the agent the prerequisite and the routing to the sibling tool. It does not state when not to use this tool or what happens with an unknown slug, so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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

All Clearbar model verdicts tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?