Skip to main content
Glama

aio

by org.aioq

Get the Tier 0 public evaluation items (Gate A)

get_eval_items
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the public item set for a standards pack — the Gate A half of AIO Tier 0. Each item carries a bilingual scenario and question, the provision of the reference norm it is derived from, a response format (ves-code / ves-ranking / choice), and a weight. Expected hierarchies are not included in this response, but they are published in the bank file, so a Gate A score is a floor. Use this to practise or to score Gate A alone. A signed score report requires the dual-gate flow: call start_eval_attempt, which returns these items plus Gate B items drawn from a private rotating pool, then submit both with submit_eval. Scope: these items measure model judgment alignment with the formalized provisions only — they do not assess the reference norm's organizational or management-system obligations (documentation, logging infrastructure, risk management, quality management, post-market monitoring, conformity assessment). CC BY 4.0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packIdNoStandards pack id, e.g. "eu-ai-act". Defaults to "eu-ai-act".

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the read-only annotations by disclosing item contents (bilingual scenario, question, provision, response format, weight), the absence of expected hierarchies, the implication that Gate A score is a floor, and the licensing. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses every sentence to add distinct value (contents, exclusions, usage, limitations, license). Despite length, it is focused and non-redundant.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the response contents, what is omitted, how it fits into the broader evaluation process, and its limitations. It also provides licensing and scope context, making it complete for an agent.

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% for the single optional parameter packId, which already includes an example and default. The description does not add additional parameter-level details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('public item set for a standards pack'), and identifies the Gate A half of AIO Tier 0. It distinguishes itself from sibling start_eval_attempt by noting it's only for practice or Gate A alone.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('to practise or to score Gate A alone') and when not to use it for a signed report, directing users to the dual-gate flow with start_eval_attempt. Also clarifies the scope of what the items measure versus what they do not.

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

All aio 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: fetching items vs. distributions, listing vs. fetching specific entities, and distinct submission endpoints for benchmark, eval, and RFC comments. Even the two 'get items' tools (bench vs. eval) are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and use cases.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores. Verbs are grouped by action type (get_, list_, submit_, start_, register_, verify_, search_), and the patterns are predictable and uniform across the set.

Tool Count4/5

At 17 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but each tool serves a distinct purpose. The breadth of the domain (papers, RFCs, standards packs, benchmarks, evaluation, certification, vocabulary, search) justifies the count, and no tool feels redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the major workflows: listing and fetching resources, starting and submitting evaluation attempts, registering and verifying certifications, and submitting benchmark/RFC responses. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to cancel an evaluation attempt or list a specific benchmark run by id, but these are edge cases and the core lifecycle is well-covered.

Resources