Skip to main content
Glama

start_run

Launch a background benchmark that asks a target model questions in English, Urdu, and Roman Urdu, grades each answer, and flags confidently wrong responses; returns a run_id unless wait=True.

Instructions

Ask the target model every question in each language, grade each answer, and record whether it was wrong while sounding sure. Runs in the background and returns a run_id unless wait=True.

Args: target: model to test, "provider:model" (e.g. "openai:gpt-4o"). judge: grader model, "provider:model". Defaults to env SBW_JUDGE; falls back to the target (not recommended). languages: subset of ["en", "ur", "roman_ur"]; default all three. question_ids: only these question ids. categories: only these categories. limit: only the first N questions (handy for a cheap trial run, e.g. 5). temperature: sampling temperature for the target (default 0; null to use the model default). system_prompt: optional system prompt for the target. Default none, like a plain chat. max_tokens: reply length cap for the target. concurrency: parallel questions in flight (lower it if you hit rate limits). questions_file: path to a custom question bank JSON. wait: block until finished and return the report (may hit client timeouts on big runs).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
waitNo
judgeNo
limitNo
targetYes
languagesNo
categoriesNo
max_tokensNo
concurrencyNo
temperatureNo
question_idsNo
system_promptNo
questions_fileNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: async execution and run_id return, blocking behavior and client-timeout risk with wait=True, the judge env fallback that is 'not recommended', and rate-limit pressure on concurrency. It omits cost/auth implications, but the async and timeout semantics are exactly the traits an agent needs.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and every args entry earns its place with a concrete hint rather than restating the schema. It is long, but the length is driven by 12 genuinely distinct parameters rather than padding.

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?

For an async eval launcher with 12 parameters and an output schema present, the description covers execution model, return contract (run_id vs report), defaults, and filtering knobs. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without inspecting source.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate and does: target/judge 'provider:model' format with an example, languages enum subset, question_ids/categories filters, limit as a cheap trial knob, temperature null meaning model default, system_prompt default 'none like a plain chat', max_tokens, concurrency, and questions_file as a custom bank path.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it asks the target model every question per language, grades each answer, and records confident-but-wrong answers. This is clearly an eval-launch tool, distinct from siblings like run_status, get_report, and resume_run.

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?

It states the key usage fork (background run returning a run_id vs wait=True blocking for the report, with timeout risk on big runs) and practical conditions like lowering concurrency on rate limits and using limit for a cheap trial. It never names the sibling tools (run_status/get_report) as the polling alternative, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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