Skip to main content
Glama

update_eval_criterion

Update a custom evaluation criterion by fully replacing its name, rubric, scale, scoring type, and config settings.

Instructions

Update a custom criterion in your account with a full replace (Pro+ only, PATCH /v1/eval-criteria/:id). name + rubric + scaleMin + scaleMax are required (not a partial update — all fields are overwritten). type / config are also fully replaced (omitting them reverts to 'llm_judge' / no config). Deterministic types require config. Global defaults (account_id IS NULL) are structurally out of scope (404); other accounts' customs are 404 too. Name collision within the account = 409.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesNew name (1-50 chars, starts with an alphanumeric, [A-Za-z0-9 _\-.] only)
typeNoEvaluator type (defaults to 'llm_judge' when omitted). Deterministic: 'exact_match' / 'contains' / 'regex' / 'json_schema' / 'json_path'
scopeNoEvaluation scope (default call). call = per call; trajectory = per trajectory (llm_judge only)
configNoType-specific settings (not needed for llm_judge). exact_match: {expectedOutput}, contains: {substring, caseSensitive?}, regex: {pattern, flags?}, json_schema: {schema}, json_path: {path, expectedValue?}. Categorical scoring also requires config.categories (2-10 entries, worst to best).
rubricYesNew rubric (10-2000 chars)
scaleMaxYesNew scaleMax (1-100, greater than scaleMin)
scaleMinYesNew scaleMin (1-100, less than scaleMax)
scoreTypeNoScoring type (default numeric). boolean = pass/fail; categorical requires config.categories (llm_judge only)
criterionIdYesTarget criterion id (list_eval_criteria.criteria[].id)
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses full replace behavior, required fields, consequences of omitting type/config (revert to defaults), and necessary config for deterministic types. It also covers error scenarios, providing good transparency.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main action. It is concise, covering key details without wordiness. While it could be broken into bullet points, it remains efficient and informative.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the full replace nature, required fields, default behaviors, and error conditions. This is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the full replace semantics, required vs optional fields, and how type/config are overwritten. It also clarifies the impact of omissions and error conditions, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 updates a custom criterion with a full replace, specifying it is Pro+ only and uses PATCH /v1/eval-criteria/:id. It differentiates from siblings like create_eval_criterion and delete_eval_criterion by emphasizing the full replace behavior and the requirement of all 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 provides clear context for when to use: for full updates of custom criteria, not partial. It also gives error conditions (404 for out-of-scope criteria, 409 for name collisions). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternative tools, but the context is sufficient.

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/argosvix/mcp-server'

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