Skip to main content
Glama
Meador793

Stats Explorer MCP

by Meador793

Step 1: state the question, hypotheses and test

state_hypotheses
Read-only

Define the test, data columns, H₀/H₁, α and alternative before seeing results to keep hypothesis tests pre-registered and avoid data-driven bias.

Instructions

Step 1 of a hypothesis test. Fix the test, the data selection and H₀/H₁ BEFORE looking at results. test_arguments are the same fields the test takes (e.g. t_test: {type, file, column, group_column, group1, group2, equal_variances, mu0}; anova: {file, column, group_column}; ab_test: {metric, file, variant_column, outcome_column, control, success_value, expected_split, segment_column}; chi_square: {type, file, row_column, col_column}; correlation: {file, x_column, y_column, method}). Only use columns the user asked about. The user confirms every column/group choice, the direction and α. Calling it again later revises the plan and restarts steps 2–6.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
h0NoNull hypothesis in plain words (a sensible default is proposed if omitted).
h1No
testYes
alphaNo
confidenceNo
alternativeNoDecide from the question, never from the data.two-sided
test_argumentsYesFields for the chosen test (file, columns, groups, type, method, ...). Not alpha/alternative.
confirmation_tokenNoOnly after the user has confirmed the proposed choices: the confirmation_token from the previous response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.5.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description explains the non-idempotency concretely: re-calling revises the plan and restarts steps 2–6. It also discloses the confirmation_token trust flow (only after user confirmation). It does not describe the response payload beyond the token, leaving some behavioral opacity.

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?

Front-loaded with the step number and the ordering constraint, followed by the per-test field map, which earns its length. The run of examples is dense but purposeful; the parenthetical field lists could be framed slightly more scannably.

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?

With no output schema and a free-form nested parameter, the description carries most of the burden and does so well: it covers state fixing, confirmation, revision semantics and per-test fields. It stops short of describing what the returned plan/token looks like or what downstream steps expect, which is the remaining gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50% with a free-form nested object, and the description compensates substantially by enumerating the test_arguments fields for t_test, anova, ab_test, chi_square and correlation. The enumeration is incomplete for z_test, ancova, manova, fisher_exact and binomial_test, so an agent using those tests still lacks field guidance.

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 names the exact workflow position ('Step 1 of a hypothesis test') and the concrete action: fixing the test, data selection, and H₀/H₁ before execution. This cleanly separates it from run_test (execution) and choose_test (selection) without needing the schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states a strong temporal constraint ('BEFORE looking at results'), a data-scope rule ('Only use columns the user asked about'), and the confirmation requirement for columns, groups, direction and α. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as choose_test or check_assumptions, so routing is implied by workflow position rather than stated.

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