Skip to main content
Glama

run_configuration

Compile if needed and run an LSD model configuration, overriding seed, runs, or threads, and return result files with summary statistics.

Instructions

Compile if needed and run a configuration of a model in the models folder. seed and runs override SEED and SIM_NUM of the file. threads: with runs > 1, the number of runs executed in parallel; otherwise threads for models that use parallel objects. Results are written next to the configuration as .res.gz. Returns the files written and, for the first run, the last value and mean of each saved series (at most 50 series, those whose name has few instances first; the rest are counted). With runs > 1 (sequential) LSD also writes _.tot.gz; with threads set the runs are parallel and no totals file is written. Row 0 of a result file holds initial values. On failure returns the tail of LSD's output.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runsNo
seedNo
modelYes
configYes
threadsNo
timeout_sNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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 so richly: compile-if-needed semantics, seed/runs overriding file SEED and SIM_NUM, parallel vs sequential run behavior, exact output filenames, the .tot.gz totals file being written only in sequential mode, row 0 holding initial values, and failure returning the tail of LSD output. This is unusually complete disclosure.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the primary action and following with behavioral detail. A few clauses (the series-counting parenthetical, totals-file note) are slightly rambling but each earns its place by conveying output behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the return payload (files written, last value and mean of saved series) and failure mode, which is the key gap. The omission of timeout_s and explicit model/config semantics is the only shortfall.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains seed, runs, and threads in meaningful detail, but leaves model, config, and especially timeout_s undocumented, so roughly half the parameters lack semantics.

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 compound action (compile if needed and run) on a precise resource (a configuration of a model in the models folder). It clearly separates itself from compile_model (only compiles) and read_results (reads output), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the workflow (compile-if-needed then run) and explains how runs/seed/threads change behavior, but never explicitly states when to choose this over sa_run_design or set_run_settings, nor any preconditions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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