Skip to main content
Glama
Hebbrix

Hebbrix MCP Server

Official
by Hebbrix

hebbrix_learning_insights

Read-onlyIdempotent

Show what a policy learned with uncertainty. Returns each action's success probability, credible interval, evidence, observation count; enable readiness checks to block promotion on insufficient data.

Instructions

Explain what one customer policy has learned, with uncertainty.

Returns each action's posterior success probability, 90% credible interval, effective evidence, and observation count for this exact tenant/user/context. evaluate_readiness=true additionally runs chronological-holdout doubly robust checks and refuses promotion when samples, randomized overlap, or effective sample size are inadequate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionsNo
contextNo
user_idNo
policy_keyYes
collection_idNo
evaluate_readinessNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Addedv0.5.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds details about the readiness check and refusal behavior, enhancing transparency beyond annotations.

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?

The description is concise, with two clear sentences. It structures purpose first, then return details and the extra check. No redundant information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers output and the evaluate_readiness behavior, but omits explanations for several optional parameters. Given the relatively simple tool (read-only analytics), it partially fulfills context but has gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Only policy_key and evaluate_readiness are implicitly or explicitly described. Other parameters (actions, context, user_id, collection_id) are not explained despite having no schema descriptions. The description references 'tenant/user/context' but does not map to specific parameters.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: explaining what a policy has learned, with uncertainty. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on learning insights with probabilistic outcomes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or provide contextual triggers for usage.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Hebbrix/hebbrix-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server