Skip to main content
Glama
aiexp1

Tanod MCP server

mlpeek: classify text into your own labels (zero-shot)

classify_zero_shot
Read-onlyIdempotent

Classify English text into 1-10 custom labels without training data; use single-label or multi-label scoring to tag content by your chosen categories.

Instructions

mlpeek: Classify a text into 1-10 of your labels. For named entities use extract_entities. Returns scores of 1-10 caller-supplied labels for an English text with the nli-deberta-v3-xsmall NLI cross-encoder (Apache-2.0): single-label scores sum to 1 (softmax over the labels), multi_label scores each label on its own; sorted best first. Scores are model confidences, not calibrated probabilities. English only. Runs an open model pinned by hash on Tanod's own CPU (no LLM, no third-party API); an unavailable model is a 503 (not charged). Typically 0.1-0.2 s for a short text and 5 labels, up to about 5 s at 10 labels. Price: USD 0.001. Free: 5 mlpeek calls per IP per UTC day. The submitted text is never logged or stored. Docs: https://tanod.dev/learn/named-entity-recognition-zero-shot-classification-api.html

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesEnglish text, at most 2,000 characters.
labelsYes1-10 unique candidate labels, each at most 100 characters.
multi_labelNoScore each label on its own instead of making them compete.
hypothesis_templateNoMust contain {} exactly once.This example is about {}.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo
errorNoOnly on an error result: an object {code, message}, or the reason string of an x402 PaymentRequired object.
modelNo
usageNo
labelsNo
truncatedNo
multi_labelNo
hypothesis_templateNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context: model identity and license, English-only limit, score semantics (softmax vs per-label), the caveat that scores are not calibrated probabilities, latency, hash-pinned local execution, 503 behavior, pricing, free tier, and a no-logging privacy guarantee. This far exceeds the structured fields.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action leads, then routing, then behavior, runtime, and pricing. Every sentence carries operational weight, though the pricing/free-tier/model detail makes it slightly heavy for a single paragraph.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description need not restate return format, and it still explains scoring semantics, latency, failure mode (503, not charged), cost, and privacy. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description clarifies multi_label behavior (scoring each label independently) and the meaning of the returned scores, but leaves hypothesis_template unexplained beyond the schema, so no lift above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (classify a text into your own labels) with the zero-shot framing, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling extract_entities for named entities. An agent can tell what it does and what it is not.

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?

Routes the agent away toward extract_entities when the task is named-entity recognition, giving a clear conditional alternative. It does not contrast with adjacent siblings like text_sentiment or embed_texts, so exclusions are partial rather than exhaustive.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools