mcp-llm-eval

check_retrieval_drift

Detect drift in retrieval evaluation by comparing baseline and current results. Flags regressed metrics like recall, precision, and more with configurable tolerance.

Instructions

Compare two retrieval evaluation result files and detect drift. Flags metrics that have regressed beyond configurable tolerance. Takes two result-set paths; does not persist history itself.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "baseline_path": "<baseline_path>",
      "current_path": "<current_path>"
    },
    "name": "check_retrieval_drift"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tolerance`	No
`current_path`	Yes
`baseline_path`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.2May 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool compares files, detects drift, and does not persist history, implying no side effects. However, it does not mention error handling or output format, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose, behavior, and constraints. Perfectly concise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema, the description should hint at the return format (e.g., list of regressed metrics). It also assumes knowledge of 'retrieval evaluation result files' and does not elaborate on the complex tolerance object, leaving gaps for new users.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only vaguely mentions 'configurable tolerance' and 'two result-set paths'. It does not explain each tolerance parameter or state that defaults exist, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 it compares two files and detects drift, with specific verb 'compare' and resource 'retrieval evaluation result files'. It also distinguishes from persistent tools by noting it does not persist history.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for comparing two result sets and mentions it does not persist history, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like 'compare_runs' or 'evaluate_retrieval'. Absence of when-not-to-use guidance reduces clarity.

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

Deploy Server