Causal Inference MCP Server

An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server that exposes real causal-inference methods as callable tools -- so any MCP client (Claude Desktop, Claude Code, or a custom script) can hand it data and get back a properly computed statistical estimate, instead of an LLM guessing at statistics inline. The agent decides which method fits a question and orchestrates the workflow; the actual math always runs in deterministic, tested Python.

Built entirely on free tools: the official open-source MCP Python SDK, statsmodels/scipy/scikit-learn for the statistics, and free public datasets (causaldata, plus fully-controlled synthetic data with known ground truth) -- no paid services required.

Tools exposed

1. diff_in_diff -- Difference-in-Differences on panel data. Returns the ATT estimate, standard error, p-value, 95% CI, and a pre-trend diagnostic (checks whether treated/control groups moved similarly before treatment, which parallel trends requires).

2. synthetic_control -- builds a weighted combination of donor (control) units matching the treated unit's pre-treatment trajectory (weights constrained non-negative, summing to 1, solved via SLSQP). Returns donor weights, pre-treatment fit (RMSE), and the post-treatment effect estimate.

3. propensity_matching -- logistic propensity scores, nearest- neighbor matching on the logit of the propensity score, matched ATT, and a covariate balance table (standardized mean differences before vs. after matching).

4. check_assumptions -- meta-tool. Takes the diagnostic fields from any of the three tools above and returns a plain-language pass/warning/fail verdict: flags likely-violated parallel trends, donor-weight concentration (an overfitting risk in synthetic control), and remaining covariate imbalance after matching. Deliberately rule-based (not an LLM call) so verdicts are deterministic and auditable.

Related MCP server: aigroup-econ-mcp

Why this shape of project

The core idea worth calling out: LLMs are unreliable at doing real statistics inline -- they can confidently miscompute a p-value or fabricate a synthetic-control weight. Putting the actual computation behind typed, tested MCP tools means an agent's role is choosing and sequencing methods correctly, not doing arithmetic it's bad at. This is infrastructure other agents call, not a standalone app.

Setup

python -m venv venv
source venv/bin/activate      # Windows: venv\Scripts\activate
pip install -r requirements.txt

Run the unit tests (validates each method against synthetic data with a known, injected ground-truth effect):

pytest tests/

Try it with the demo client

Runs all four tools end-to-end against synthetic data (known ground truth) plus one real dataset, and prints results:

python -m demo.demo_client

Connect it to Claude Desktop

Copy demo/claude_desktop_config.example.json's "causal-inference" entry into your Claude Desktop MCP config (update the path), restart Claude Desktop, and you can then ask Claude directly to run a DiD or matching analysis on data you paste in or attach -- it will call these tools rather than compute the statistics itself.

Datasets used

• Synthetic panel data with known, injected effects (data/synthetic_generators.py) -- the strongest correctness proof available, since with real data you never actually know the true effect, but here you do, and can check the tools recover it within tolerance. Used to validate diff_in_diff, synthetic_control, and one variant of propensity_matching.

• close_college (Card, 1995) via the free causaldata package -- a real, textbook dataset for propensity_matching, estimating the effect of college completion on log wages. Worth noting honestly: this dataset's actual textbook use case is Instrumental Variables (using distance to a 4-year college as an instrument), specifically because education is plausibly confounded by unobserved ability/motivation that observed covariates can't capture. Using it for matching here is a deliberate illustration of that limitation -- the check_assumptions tool's balance check can show clean covariate balance while the deeper confounding problem still isn't solved. That's the point: good balance is necessary, not sufficient.

Phase 2 (planned, not yet built)

An agent orchestration layer (e.g. LangGraph) on top of this server that:

• decides which causal method fits a given question and dataset shape,

• calls the relevant tool via this server,

• calls check_assumptions and iterates or flags concerns rather than reporting a number blindly,

• explains the result and its caveats in plain language.

Phase 1 (this repo) is the tool layer; Phase 2 reuses it rather than duplicating the statistics inside an agent framework.