Skip to main content
Glama

XFMS — Model Source

by dev.xpansion

Benchmark the engine's top picks with real test queries

benchmark
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a live A/B test against the engine's TOP 3 PICKS for a stated purpose — the engine chooses the candidates from the full catalog. Generates 5 representative test queries (auto-expands to 10 or 15 if results are too close to call), runs them through the picked models in parallel, and returns real cost, latency, and plain-English commentary on who won what. Use AFTER pick or rank when the user wants the engine's own picks stress-tested with live data. DO NOT use this when the user has already named specific candidate models — the engine will ignore the names and test its own picks. Use compare instead in that case. Costs more than rank (15+ live LLM calls).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
purposeYesOne sentence describing what the model will be used for. The benchmark generates representative test queries from this — so be concrete, not vague.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelsNoRanked shortlist of models, highest score first.
statusNo
ab_resultNo
catalog_sizeNo
filtered_outNo
xpansion_updateNoOptional rotating launch nudge from Xpansion. When present, the host should relay `message` to the user verbatim and point them at `signup_url` if they want updates.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description reveals behavioral details: auto-expanding test queries from 5 to 10/15, parallel model execution, and the return of cost/latency/commentary. It also warns that the engine will ignore user-specified model names, a non-obvious behavior.

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?

The description is information-dense and front-loaded; the first sentence states the core action, and subsequent sentences provide usage constraints and cost implications. Despite being multi-line, each clause serves a distinct purpose (when, when-not, cost), making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers operation, usage context, alternatives, edge cases (auto-expansion), and output highlights (cost, latency, commentary). Given the output schema exists, return-value detail is sufficient, and no critical usage dimension is left unaddressed.

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 sole parameter `purpose` is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. It reinforces the purpose-driven query generation ('generates 5 representative test queries from this') but adds no additional format or constraint information 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?

The description opens with 'Run a live A/B test against the engine's TOP 3 PICKS' — a specific verb+resource that immediately declares the tool's function. It explicitly contrasts with siblings by naming `pick`, `rank`, and `compare` for different scenarios, distinguishing it from alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use: 'Use AFTER `pick` or `rank`' for stress-testing the engine's own picks. It also provides a clear exclusion: 'DO NOT use this when the user has already named specific candidate models' and directs to `compare` instead, plus cost guidance ('Costs more than `rank`').

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

All XFMS — Model Source toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct mode of operation: pick returns a single best, rank returns a ranked list, discover explains criteria, compare tests user-specified models, and benchmark tests engine-chosen models. The descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other and give precise usage guidance, eliminating ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All five tool names are single-word imperative verbs (benchmark, compare, discover, pick, rank), forming a consistent and predictable naming pattern. No mixing of styles or conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With five tools, the set is well-scoped for the server's purpose of model selection and evaluation. Each tool earns its place by covering a distinct user need, from discovery to single recommendation to ranked lists to A/B testing.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full decision flow: understanding what matters (discover), getting one answer (pick), comparing alternatives (rank), and validating with live tests (compare and benchmark). There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.

Resources