ImmunoGraph MCP

compute_consensus

Read-onlyIdempotent

Combine one candidate group's normalized observations into weighted consensus, agreement, and completeness scores using caller-supplied evidence and a required weight.

Instructions

Combine one candidate group of normalized observations into weighted consensus, agreement, and completeness. Use after normalize_scores when the group and required weight are known; use compute_consensus_batch for several independent groups. It calculates from caller-supplied evidence and does not make a new prediction.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`runId`	Yes	Caller-chosen identifier linking this call to one research run.
`groupKey`	Yes	Stable identifier for one independent consensus group.
`observations`	Yes	Caller-supplied evidence observations; this tool does not fetch them.
`configuredRequiredWeight`	Yes	Total weight of evidence methods required by the consensus profile.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether execution completed successfully.
`data`	No	Tool-specific result fields on success.
`meta`	Yes	Run identifiers, timings, and input/output hashes.
`error`	No	Structured failure on unsuccessful execution.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.2.1Oct 31, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / configuredRequiredWeight / description

Added value: +"Total weight of evidence methods required by the consensus profile."

addedInput schema / properties / groupKey / description

Added value: +"Stable identifier for one independent consensus group."

addedInput schema / properties / observations / description

Added value: +"Caller-supplied evidence observations; this tool does not fetch them."

addedInput schema / properties / runId / description

Added value: +"Caller-chosen identifier linking this call to one research run."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "Tool-specific result fields on success.",
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "Structured failure on unsuccessful execution.",
+      "properties": {
+        "category": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "code": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "details": {
+          "additionalProperties": {},
+          "properties": {},
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "retryable": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "code",
+        "category",
+        "message",
+        "retryable"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "meta": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "Run identifiers, timings, and input/output hashes.",
+      "properties": {
+        "completedAt": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "durationMs": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "inputHash": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "outputHash": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "requestId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "runId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "startedAt": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "toolName": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "toolVersion": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "requestId",
+        "runId",
+        "toolName",
+        "toolVersion",
+        "startedAt",
+        "inputHash"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "Whether execution completed successfully.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "meta"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.2.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's added value is scope boundaries: it works only from caller-supplied evidence and does not make a new prediction. That is useful disambiguation for an agent that might expect prediction behavior, but it stops short of noting what happens when required weight is unmet beyond the implied 'completeness' output.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its outputs, then the sequencing and alternative. Every clause earns its place; no repetition of name or title.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, annotations cover the safety profile, and the schema fully documents all four required parameters. The remaining need for an agent is sequencing and scope, both of which are supplied.

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%, including descriptions for runId, groupKey, observations, and configuredRequiredWeight, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only implies that 'group' and 'required weight' must be known before calling and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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: combine one candidate group of normalized observations into weighted consensus, agreement, and completeness. It distinguishes itself from compute_consensus_batch by scope (one group vs. several independent groups), so an agent can differentiate without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('use after normalize_scores when the group and required weight are known') and names the alternative for the multi-group case. Both the when-to-use and the routing rule are stated, nothing left to inference.

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

Deploy Server