Skip to main content
Glama

evaluate_context_pack

Destructive

Record evaluation outcomes for context packs, including scores, evidence, and guardrail compliance, to track performance and ensure quality standards.

Instructions

Record evaluation outcome for a context pack

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packIdYes
outcomeYes
signalNo
notesNo
rubricScoresNo
guardrailsNo

Implementation Reference

  • The core implementation of the evaluateContextPack function which handles evaluation logic, file writing, and provenance recording.
    function evaluateContextPack({ packId, outcome, signal = null, notes = '', rubricEvaluation = null }) {
      const evaluation = {
        id: `eval_${Date.now()}_${Math.random().toString(36).slice(2, 8)}`,
        packId,
        outcome,
        signal,
        notes,
        rubricEvaluation,
        timestamp: nowIso(),
      };
    
      appendJsonl(path.join(CONTEXTFS_ROOT, NAMESPACES.provenance, 'evaluations.jsonl'), evaluation);
      recordProvenance({
        type: 'context_pack_evaluated',
        packId,
        outcome,
        signal,
        rubricPromotionEligible: rubricEvaluation ? rubricEvaluation.promotionEligible : null,
      });
    
      return evaluation;
    }
  • The adapter wrapper function (buildContextEvaluationResponse) that validates input and calls the core evaluateContextPack logic within the MCP server.
    function buildContextEvaluationResponse(args = {}) {
      if (!args.packId || !args.outcome) {
        throw new Error('packId and outcome are required');
      }
    
      let rubricEvaluation = null;
      if (args.rubricScores != null || args.guardrails != null) {
        rubricEvaluation = buildRubricEvaluation({
          rubricScores: args.rubricScores,
          guardrails: args.guardrails,
        });
      }
    
      const evaluation = evaluateContextPack({
        packId: args.packId,
        outcome: args.outcome,
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, suggesting this tool performs a write operation. The description 'Record evaluation outcome' aligns with this by implying data creation/update, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation. It doesn't specify permissions, side effects, or data persistence details that would be helpful given the destructive nature.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a destructive tool with 6 parameters (including nested objects), 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'evaluation outcome' entails, how data is stored, or what happens after recording, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand tool behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description provides no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain the meaning of 'packId', 'outcome', 'signal', 'notes', 'rubricScores', or 'guardrails', failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Record evaluation outcome') and resource ('for a context pack'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'capture_feedback' or 'feedback_summary' that might also handle evaluation-related data, missing explicit distinction.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or relationships to sibling tools like 'construct_context_pack' or 'feedback_stats', leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/IgorGanapolsky/mcp-memory-gateway'

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