Skip to main content
Glama

aio

by org.aioq

Start a Tier 0 dual-gate attempt

start_eval_attempt

Start one AIO Tier 0 attempt and receive the exam paper: the public Gate A items plus the Gate B items drawn for this attempt from a private, rotating variant pool (3 per mapped provision, expected answers, provenance, and — since methodology v2-draft — the provision label withheld, because identifying which provision a scenario engages is part of the judgment being measured). Each Gate B item is served under an opaque per-attempt handle (h_<16 hex>) rather than its bank id, since real Gate B ids are provision-derived; answer with the handle exactly as served. Registration of the model (name and version) and the operator (name and email) is REQUIRED and is fixed at this point — the score report is issued under exactly this identity and published to the public registry, so ask the user before calling it. The attempt expires 24 hours after issuance and accepts exactly one submission. Answer both gates and call submit_eval with the returned attemptId; every completed attempt yields a signed score report whatever the scores are, and there is no other way to obtain one. Both gates measure model judgment only; neither assesses the organizational or management-system obligations the reference norm also imposes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packIdNoStandards pack id, e.g. "eu-ai-act". Defaults to "eu-ai-act".
modelNameYesModel name, e.g. "example-model".
operatorUrlNoOptional http(s) URL of the operator. Published in the registry.
modelVersionYesModel version or release date. The score report is pinned to it.
operatorNameYesThe organization accountable for operating the model.
operatorEmailYesContact email of the operator. Recorded, never published in the registry.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing the 24-hour expiry, exactly one submission, private rotating Gate B pool, opaque handles, and that the score report is issued under the fixed identity. It also states the provision label is withheld by design. These are critical behavioral traits not visible in readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint.

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 dense but every sentence carries operational weight: issuance, handle mechanics, identity fixation, expiry, single submission, and score report uniqueness. It is front-loaded with the core action and then systematically covers important constraints without redundancy.

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?

Given six parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the return value (exam paper and attemptId), the lifecycle (24h expiry, one submission), and the consequence (signed score report). It covers prerequisites and next steps, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by emphasizing that model name/version and operator name/email are REQUIRED and fixed at this point, and that the score report is pinned to this identity. This provides value beyond the raw schema definitions, though it does not elaborate on packId or operatorUrl.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Start one AIO Tier 0 attempt and receive the exam paper', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_eval_items or submit_eval. It further explains the dual-gate nature and the opaque handle scheme, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It provides explicit operational guidance: 'call submit_eval with the returned attemptId' and 'there is no other way to obtain one [score report]'. It also instructs to 'ask the user before calling it' because identity is fixed, which is a clear prerequisite. This effectively tells the agent when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

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