spss-studio-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Spss Reliability Alpha

spss_reliability_alpha

Run Cronbach's alpha reliability analysis in SPSS to assess scale reliability and item statistics for psychometric research.

Instructions

Run SPSS RELIABILITY analysis (Cronbach's alpha). Returns scale reliability and item statistics for psychometric workflows. Requires IBM SPSS Statistics to be installed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>",
      "variables": "<variables>"
    },
    "name": "spss_reliability_alpha"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`model`	No	ALPHA
`file_path`	Yes
`variables`	Yes
`scale_name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the prerequisite 'Requires IBM SPSS Statistics to be installed' but omits whether the operation is read-only, what side effects it has, or how output is handled, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, each front-loaded and purposeful: purpose, return content, and prerequisite. There is no wasted language or repetition.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, but the description is still incomplete for a tool with four undocumented parameters and no usage guidance. The prerequisite is helpful but insufficient to cover the missing parameter semantics and behavioral context.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 4 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to mention any of them. It does not explain file_path, variables, model, or scale_name, leaving the agent to infer their meaning solely from the schema structure.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (Run) and resource (SPSS RELIABILITY analysis), clarifying it computes Cronbach's alpha. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like spss_factor or spss_compute_scale_score, so a 4 is appropriate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The phrase 'for psychometric workflows' hints at context but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spss_factor or spss_compute_scale_score. No exclusions or prerequisites beyond the SPSS installation are given.

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

Deploy Server