Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-knowledge

by io.github.getgapup

bias_amplification_tracker

Read-onlyIdempotent

Tracks bias amplification in LLM outputs by analyzing fairness metrics from HuggingFace's model leaderboard. Designed for risk assessment personas to detect and quantify demographic, gender, or racial bias amplification in generated text. Accepts model identifiers or output samples, returns structured bias metrics and amplification trends.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
asyncNoIf true, returns a job_id immediately (<200ms) instead of waiting for the result. Poll the result with job_result(job_id). Use for slow tools to avoid client timeouts.
modelIdNoHuggingFace model identifier (e.g., 'facebook/opt-1.3b')
outputSamplesNoArray of LLM output strings to analyze for bias amplification
demographicGroupsNoSpecific demographic groups to monitor (e.g., ['gender', 'race'])

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
sourcesNo
warningsNo
biasMetricsNo

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description's job is lighter. It adds context about HuggingFace leaderboard and fairness metrics but does not disclose additional behaviors beyond those annotations, such as rate limits or authentication 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?

The description consists of two concise sentences, front-loading the core function and audience without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool has an output schema, no required parameters, and moderate complexity, the description covers the key aspects: data source (HuggingFace), audience, inputs, and outputs. It could mention default behavior when no parameters are provided or data freshness, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with all 4 parameters described. The description reinforces the purpose (model identifiers, output samples) but does not add significant semantic depth beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool tracks bias amplification in LLM outputs using HuggingFace's model leaderboard, specifying the resource (LLM outputs) and verb (tracks, analyzes). It distinguishes from siblings like hallucination_confidence_meter by focusing on fairness metrics and demographic bias.

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 mentions it is designed for risk assessment personas to detect bias amplification, implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, lacking exclusions or direct alternative references.

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

All mcp-knowledge 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

C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially in competitive intelligence, ESG, and risk assessment. For example, there are multiple tools for competitor analysis (competitive_deep_dive, competitor_intel, competitor_moves, etc.) with unclear boundaries. Agents would struggle to select the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are a mix of English and French, and follow no consistent pattern. Some use snake_case (e.g., abm_architect, action_plan_esg), while others are verb-focused (e.g., content_catalog, fx_rate). The lack of a uniform naming convention makes it hard for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 271 tools, the server is excessively large. Even for a broad knowledge domain, this number of tools makes discovery and selection inefficient. Typical coherent servers have 3-15 tools; this has an order of magnitude more, indicating poor scoping.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains (compliance, finance, marketing, HR, etc.), but the coverage is uneven due to redundancy. Key areas have multiple overlapping tools, while some sub-domains may still have gaps. Overall, the surface is broad but not well-curated.

Resources