Skip to main content
Glama

build_univariate

Builds univariate time-series models for each series from raw data, writes fit files, and opens an ATSW ladder session for joint modeling.

Instructions

N0u — ROUTE U from raw data (docs/STUDY-raw-entry.md): build each series' univariate model with art's engine, then climb the ladder as always (Jenkins and Alavi: the univariate models first).

On each series' characterization (characterize): the orders art ranks first, the mean (d = D = 0) or a drift kept only if |t| >= 2, a fue fit, a residual check; <SERIES>_u.inp/.pre/.out written to out_dir (default: <data>_sima/ next to the table). Every .pre carries the line "Built by sima's raw entry (route U), not reviewed in art". This is art's autonomous lane in miniature — no over-parameterisation, calendar effects, formal tests or interventions: the report offers art for any series with a tie or a residual problem.

It then opens the ladder session of the same name with those files (the guion goes on): next, run_gate. Existing files are kept unless overwrite.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "build_univariate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
out_dirNo
overwriteNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does meaningful work: it names the exact artifacts written (`<SERIES>_u.inp/.pre/.out`), the default destination, the provenance line stamped into every .pre, and the scope limits (no over-parameterisation, calendar effects, formal tests or interventions). It also explains the overwrite trade-off ('existing files are kept unless overwrite'). What it does not disclose is whether the write is destructive/reversible beyond that one clause.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

There is little filler, but the structure is anti-front-loaded: it opens with the opaque 'N0u — ROUTE U' token and buries the actual action behind a parenthetical doc reference, then layers jargon-dense clauses. An agent must read the whole block to find the verb-object.

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

Completeness3/5

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 need not be explained, and the description does cover artifacts, defaults, scope limits, and the next pipeline step. What is missing is the prerequisite/auth context and any statement of what an agent should expect if `name` collides with an existing session — gaps that matter for a file-writing tool with no annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain `out_dir` (default `<data>_sima/` next to the table) and `overwrite` (existing files kept unless set), but `name` is only obliquely covered by 'the ladder session of the same name' — its role as the required session identifier and its format are not stated.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description does name a specific action and resource (build each series' univariate model, write `<SERIES>_u.inp/.pre/.out`) and places it in a pipeline (then opens the ladder session; next, run_gate). However, the opening 'N0u — ROUTE U' plus heavy in-house jargon ('art's engine', 'fue fit', 'the guion goes on') makes the core purpose slow to extract for an agent unfamiliar with the vocabulary, and it never contrasts itself directly with near siblings like characterize or estimate.

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?

Usage is implied through sequencing ('then climb the ladder as always', 'next, run_gate') and a partial exclusion (the report offers art for any series with a tie or a residual problem). But there is no explicit 'use this when…, use characterize/estimate instead when…' statement, so the agent must infer routing from jargon.

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