Skip to main content
Glama

Misata Studio: verified synthetic data

Check answers against the answer key

check_answers
Read-onlyIdempotent
The dataset's ground truth: every number it is held to, and the business's standard numbers (MRR, churn, billed
revenue, win rate...), by month, worked out when it was made. Use it to test whatever answers questions about the
data -- an agent, a dashboard, a cube, a text-to-SQL model -- and to say exactly why a wrong answer is wrong.

Call it four ways:
  1. dataset_id alone: the key's numbers (`kpis`: id, title, unit, months) and `questions` to ask, drawn from
     the key ("What is MRR at each month's end for 2025-07?"), each with an id. Their answers are not shown.
  2. answers={question_id: number}: each answer graded within its tolerance; a wrong one is named as the
     usual misreading it equals (voided invoices counted, churn over every account), when it is one.
  3. values with kpi: numbers computed anywhere (ClickHouse, a semantic layer, a BI tile), as one number, a
     {"2025-07": 123.4, ...} series by month, or [[month, value], ...]. Says whether they are that KPI (a tile
     is read as its latest month, the year to date, ...), and what they are instead when not.
  4. sql (and kpi): a query over this dataset's own tables (DuckDB, as query_dataset), run here; a wrong one is
     told which KPI it computes, or the one change after which it returns the key.

The values are plain numbers, so an answer from any engine is checked the same way; export_dataset(format="demo",
dialect="clickhouse") hands over the same data and key to load into ClickHouse.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kpiNo
sqlNo
seedNo
valuesNo
answersNo
questionsNo
dataset_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: tolerance-based grading, naming a wrong answer as the specific misreading it equals, reading a BI tile as its latest month, and running SQL over the dataset's own DuckDB tables. This is genuinely useful disclosure of failure and evaluation behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded and the four modes are cleanly numbered, so it scans well. Some sentences are convoluted (the parenthetical asides about misreadings and tile interpretation), costing a little readability, but every sentence carries 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns and does so per mode: kpis and questions in mode 1, per-answer verdicts in mode 2, KPI identification in mode 3, and query verdicts in mode 4. An agent has enough to call it correctly across all four modes.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for six of seven parameters, defining concrete formats for values (scalar, {'2025-07': 123.4}, [[month, value]]), the question_id-to-number shape of answers, and the role of kpi and sql. The seed parameter is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving one parameter opaque.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: it holds the dataset's ground-truth numbers and grades answers against them. It also explicitly contrasts itself with siblings by noting the sql mode runs 'as query_dataset' and pointing to export_dataset for handing the same data to ClickHouse.

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 enumerates four distinct invocation modes with the exact argument combination that selects each (dataset_id alone, answers, values+kpi, sql+kpi) and states the purpose of each. An agent can pick the right mode without guessing.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources