shpbl-counterfactual-exposure-planner
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| exposure_baselineB | Measure a sealed exposure graph without mutating it |
| exposure_simulateC | Simulate one intervention scenario against current exposure state |
| exposure_rankB | Rank multiple counterfactual scenarios deterministically and identify Pareto-efficient options |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: baseline measurement, single-scenario simulation, and multi-scenario ranking. There is no real overlap or ambiguity between these three operations.
All tools share the exposure_ prefix and snake_case, which makes them predictable. The minor deviation is that exposure_baseline uses a noun while exposure_simulate and exposure_rank use verbs, slightly breaking a pure verb_noun pattern.
Three tools is on the lower end but appropriate for a tightly scoped counterfactual exposure planner. Each tool covers a distinct stage in the workflow and none feels redundant.
The core planning workflow of baseline, simulate, and rank is well covered. The main gap is the lack of tools for defining/persisting scenarios or applying a chosen intervention, but this is not a fatal omission for a planner.