MacroStress

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

model

List, describe, estimate, and backtest macroeconomic and satellite specifications; manage version hashes and map quantities to satellite estimators for stress-test scenarios.

Instructions

Model versions and plugins. kind: macro, satellites, catalog.

The episode check of the models is backtest (python -m mst.metrics). Actions for macro: list, describe, estimate, backtest; for satellites: list, describe, estimate; for catalog: list, the installed model plugins. model_id names the macro model to estimate or backtest — the only one installed when omitted; assignment maps a quantity to the satellite model that estimates it in an estimate of the satellites, overriding the model that declares it. version is the version hash describe reads and the macro version the satellites of an estimate are built on; list takes no version.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`only`	No
`as_of`	No
`action`	Yes
`version`	No
`model_id`	No
`assignment`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.0Oct 31, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / assignment

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

addedInput schema / properties / model_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some useful context such as the default behavior when model_id is omitted ('the only one installed when omitted') and that 'list takes no version,' but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether estimate/backtest mutate state.

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 description is dense but front-loads the resource and kind enumeration before action and parameter details. Most sentences earn their place by clarifying action applicability or parameter behavior, though the formatting is somewhat packed.

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?

This is a complex multi-kind, multi-action tool with seven parameters and no annotations. The description covers the main action routing and several key parameter semantics, but omits 'only' and 'as_of' and does not compensate for the lack of annotation-level behavioral detail; the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains kind, action, model_id, assignment, and version, including action-specific applicability, but it does not explain the 'only' or 'as_of' parameters at all.

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 the resource ('Model versions and plugins') and enumerates the three kinds ('macro, satellites, catalog') with their supported actions. This is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings such as run, scenario, or series.

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?

Usage is implied through the action lists per kind ('Actions for macro: list, describe, estimate, backtest; for satellites: list, describe, estimate; for catalog: list'). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server