Skip to main content
Glama

phasefolio

by com.phasefolio
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_scenario

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a PhaseFolio scenario's complete inputs (stage costs, durations, PoS, commercial assumptions, IRA settings) and computed outputs (eNPV, rNPV, cumulative PoS, per-stage breakdown, top sensitivity drivers). This is the authoritative model output — every signed export ties back to this payload.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scenario_idYesUUID of the scenario. Get from list_scenarios or the scenario URL in the dashboard.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / model_version
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Model version that produced `result` (the result's own engine_version key). Null when the scenario has not been computed."
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / result / description
      Previous value: -"Full engine output blob: eNPV (USD M), rNPV (USD M), cumulative_pos, per_stage_breakdown[], top sensitivity drivers, optional Monte Carlo percentiles."New value: +"Full model output blob: eNPV (USD M), rNPV (USD M), cumulative_pos, per_stage_breakdown[], top sensitivity drivers, optional Monte Carlo percentiles."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / data / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "label",
-  "project_id",
-  "is_base",
-  "created_at",
-  "updated_at",
-  "inputs",
-  "result",
-  "modality",
-  "mfp_discount"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "label",
+  "project_id",
+  "is_base",
+  "created_at",
+  "updated_at",
+  "inputs",
+  "result",
+  "model_version",
+  "modality",
+  "mfp_discount"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable trust context: it is the authoritative model output and every signed export ties back to this payload, though it does not state rate limits or auth needs.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences, purpose-first with the payload scope up front and the authority/trust note second. No filler or repetition; every clause carries useful information.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema and rich safety annotations, the description is complete. It adds model-output authority and enumerates payload scope without needing to explain return values, which the output schema already covers.

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 100%; the single scenario_id parameter is fully documented with UUID format and source. The description adds no parameter syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb 'Fetch' plus resource 'PhaseFolio scenario' and enumerates both inputs (stage costs, durations, PoS, commercial assumptions, IRA settings) and computed outputs (eNPV, rNPV, cumulative PoS, per-stage breakdown, sensitivity drivers). The scope distinguishes it from list_scenarios and other get_* siblings even without naming them.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives within the description. The schema's note that scenario_id comes from list_scenarios is structured-field guidance, not tool-description routing.

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

All phasefolio toolsInspect
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