StatsPAI

search_functions

Read-only

Search the StatsPAI function registry by task keywords or a short phrase to find ranked matches with category and validation tier. Use it when no listed tool fits, then run the chosen function.

Instructions

Search the StatsPAI function registry by task keywords or a short phrase (e.g. 'staggered adoption event study', 'weak instrument robust CI'). Returns ranked matches with one-line descriptions, category and validation tier. Use it when no listed tool fits, then describe_function for the parameters and call_function to run it.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_functions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of matches to return.
`query`	Yes	Keywords or a short task description.
`detail`	No	Payload depth; agent is the fullest.	agent
`data_id`	No	Data handle (d_...) from load_data; replaces data_path.
`category`	No	Optional registry category filter (e.g. 'causal', 'panel', 'regression', 'diagnostics').
`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`	No	Handle of an earlier fit made with as_handle=true.
`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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description doesn't need to argue safety. It adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are ranked, and each carries a one-line description, category, and validation tier, which tells the agent what it can act on next. It stops short of any statement about empty-result behavior or result-set sizing, which keeps it below a 5.

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, each carrying distinct information: what it searches, what it returns, and how to use the result. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no restatement of the tool name or filler.

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 spelled out, and the description correctly covers purpose, result shape at a high level, and the downstream calling sequence. For an 11-parameter tool it leaves the fit/data-handling parameters unexplained and doesn't say what to do when nothing matches, which is a modest but real gap.

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%, so every parameter including limit, detail, category, and the data_* plumbing is already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description only adds value for the query parameter through worked examples of phrasing; it says nothing about the data_id/data_csv/as_handle/result_id parameters, which look anomalous on a search tool and would benefit from explanation.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Search the StatsPAI function registry') and scopes the input type to task keywords or a short phrase, reinforced by two concrete query examples. It also states what comes back (ranked matches with one-line descriptions, category, validation tier), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from describe_function and call_function.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly gives the trigger condition ('Use it when no listed tool fits') and then the follow-on workflow: describe_function for parameters, call_function to run the result. Both when-to-use and the named alternatives are present, so the routing decision requires no inference.

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