StatsPAI

brief_result

Read-only

Returns a one-line agent-friendly brief for a fitted result, letting you summarize a chained StatsPAI workflow without re-fetching the full JSON payload.

Instructions

Return the one-line agent-friendly brief for a fitted result. Uses sp.brief(). Useful when an agent wants to summarise a chained workflow without paying for the full JSON payload again.

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": {
      "result_id": "<result_id>"
    },
    "name": "brief_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`detail`	No	Payload depth; agent is the fullest.	agent
`data_id`	No	Data handle (d_...) from load_data; replaces data_path.
`data_csv`	No	Small inline table as CSV text.
`as_handle`	No	Cache the fit and return its result_id.
`data_path`	No	Absolute path of a data file on the server.
`result_id`	Yes	Handle to a previously-fitted result.
`data_records`	No	Small inline table as row objects.
`max_output_bytes`	No	Result byte budget (default 262144; 0 = none).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses the output shape (one line), the efficiency motive (avoids re-paying for the full JSON payload), and the underlying implementation (sp.brief()). It does not discuss the byte budget parameter's effect or what happens when the handle is stale, which leaves a small gap given annotations already carry the safety profile.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with the purpose first and the rationale second; no filler. The sp.brief() reference is an implementation detail that barely earns its space but is harmless.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the description covers the core intent for a simple read-only tool. Marginal gaps are the unexplained data-input parameters and the lack of routing guidance versus the 'brief' sibling.

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 all eight parameters are already documented. The description adds nothing about why data-loading parameters (data_id, data_path, data_csv) appear on a summarisation tool, which is the main confusion the schema leaves behind.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: returns a one-line agent-friendly brief for a fitted result, and names the underlying routine (sp.brief()). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool named 'brief', so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two to pick.

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?

Gives a clear usage context: summarising a chained workflow without re-fetching the full JSON payload. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming the alternative sibling for a fuller summary.

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