Skip to main content
Glama

sim_calibrate

Destructive

Calibrate a model against YOUR event log — the reading that meets reality. Upload CSV (case_id, activity, timestamp; the shape sim_dataset emits, activities = transition ids), and rates are learned from the observed timings: sources from inter-arrival times, services from the gap before their completions, all per hour. Instant-pickup transitions (declared rate >= 100) keep their declared rate — their observed gap is the queue wait, and learning it would destroy the calibration discipline. A transition declaring a delay (a fixed-duration timer, not a rate) is fit differently and returned in learnedDelays instead of learnedRates: the MEDIAN observed gap, in hours, written onto the transition itself since a delay has no solver-map slot — a gapCV in rateEvidence far from 0 means the log looks exponential, not fixed, and the calibration says so in a caveat rather than trusting the median anyway. Returns a NEW content-addressed model (learned rates in the solver map, learned delays on the transitions, declared values otherwise untouched, lineage recorded) plus a conformance report: fittingPercent (full replays) is the headline, worst traces named with the activities that could not fire. tokenFitness is a second, harsher reading of the same replay (raw tokens present vs. required at every step, not full-trace success) that under-reads any net with a resource pool — read fittingPercent, not tokenFitness, unless you specifically want the raw-token number. Every learned rate or delay has an entry in rateEvidence: n (gaps it rests on), gapCV (sample std dev over mean of those gaps; ~1 for exponential timings, near 0 for a true timer) and insufficient when n < 2 — n=0 yields nothing, n=1 a value with no spread. Learned values on a structure that cannot replay the traces would be numerology — read fittingPercent before trusting them. Costs 3 tokens from your account's compute bucket (a replay of the log, 2, and the stored model, 1).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesmodel id to calibrate
logYesthe event log, as CSV text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations covering safety profile, the description goes far beyond them: it discloses the cost (3 tokens split 2 for replay + 1 for stored model), the exact shape of the returned evidence (rateEvidence with n, gapCV, insufficient flags), edge behavior at n=0 and n=1, the caveat emitted when gapCV suggests non-exponential timings, and why instant-pickup transitions are excluded. This is unusually rich operational disclosure for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose and cost are front-loaded, but the body is one dense paragraph that packs in evidence-field semantics, edge cases, and caveat mechanics without structural breaks. All of it is relevant, but the sheer length makes it harder to scan than a shorter, sectioned statement would be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does: the new model, the learned rates/delays placement, lineage, and the conformance report fields (fittingPercent, worst traces, tokenFitness, rateEvidence). Nothing an agent needs to interpret results is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema lacks: the log parameter must be CSV text with columns case_id, activity, timestamp, activities are transition ids, and the id names the model to calibrate. The CSV column contract is essential invocation knowledge not present in 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?

States a specific verb+resource (calibrate a model against an event log) plus the exact artifact consumed (CSV with case_id, activity, timestamp as emitted by sim_dataset). It distinguishes itself from siblings by tying its output to a NEW content-addressed model plus a conformance report, so an agent can separate it from sim_conformance or sim_create_model.

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?

Gives clear context for invocation (upload a log of the sim_dataset shape) and a conditional routing cue ('read fittingPercent, not tokenFitness, unless you specifically want the raw-token number'), plus the precondition that fittingPercent should be checked before trusting learned values. It never names a concrete alternative tool for the no-learning case, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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