Skip to main content
Glama
MichaelEnny

healthsec-mcp

by MichaelEnny

run_membership_inference

Evaluates a model's privacy risk by running a membership inference attack, returning accuracy and count of identifiable training members.

Instructions

Run a shadow-model membership-inference attack against a registered model.

    `member_pool` must be rows known to have been in the model's
    training set -- it trains the shadow models and supplies the
    known-member evaluation sample. `nonmember_pool` must be rows
    known NOT to have been in training (e.g. a held-out test split) --
    it supplies the known-non-member evaluation sample only. Each pool
    is capped at 5,000 samples; shadow-model training does not scale
    past this in the validated protocol.

    Returns the attack's accuracy/AUROC at distinguishing members from
    non-members, a privacy-risk tier, and a direct count of how many
    of the evaluated members would be identifiable -- not a
    population-scale extrapolation.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
seedNo
n_evalNo
member_poolYes
model_handleYes
nonmember_poolYes
n_shadow_modelsNo
shadow_model_sizeNo
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that shadow models are trained, pools are capped, returns specific metrics, and that the result is not a population-scale extrapolation. It lacks information on authorization or computational cost, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 a single paragraph with key points front-loaded. It is reasonably concise, though it uses backticks for code elements. Every sentence provides useful information, though some details could be condensed without loss.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return value (accuracy/AUROC, privacy-risk tier, direct count) and clarifies no population-scale extrapolation. However, for 7 parameters, only the two pools are well explained; other parameters (seed, n_eval, n_shadow_models, shadow_model_size) lack any explanation in the description, relying on their default values for context.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The description adds value by explaining the roles of member_pool (trains shadow models and supplies eval sample) and nonmember_pool (only supplies eval sample) and the 5,000 sample cap. However, it does not explain seed, n_eval, n_shadow_models, or shadow_model_size beyond their defaults.

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 it runs a shadow-model membership-inference attack against a registered model. It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (model) and attack type, distinguishing it from siblings like run_boundary_attack (adversarial examples) and assess_attack_coverage (coverage assessment).

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?

The description explains the necessity of both member_pool and nonmember_pool, and mentions the cap of 5,000 samples. It implies usage when evaluating membership leakage for a registered model, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tool references. The context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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/MichaelEnny/healthsec-mcp'

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