Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@argosvix/mcp-server

@argosvix/mcp-server

by argosvix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

list_eval_runs

Retrieve your eval run history with summary scores and per-criterion trends to analyze recent evaluation results in one call.

Instructions

List the eval baseline runner's run history. Scoped to your account, most recent first. Includes summary.scoredCount / failedCount / meanScoreByCriterion, so an AI agent can grasp recent eval result summaries and per-criterion score trends in one call. Free users can read past runs too.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_eval_runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNumber of results (1-50, default 20)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.30.0-alpha.14

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering, output fields (scoredCount, failedCount, meanScoreByCriterion), scope to account, and free user access.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then ordering and output fields, then access note. No wasted words.

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?

Completes the picture for a listing tool: tells what output includes, ordering, scope. No missing critical info given single parameter and no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with clear description for the limit parameter. Tool description adds nothing beyond schema, so baseline 3.

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 the tool lists eval run history, scoped to account, most recent first. It distinguishes from siblings like list_eval_datasets and compare_eval_runs by explicitly mentioning the summary fields.

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 implies when to use: to get recent eval summaries and trends. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use.

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