Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
daf-jev

daf-jev

by docxology
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

jev_posteriors_load

Load and validate a bayesnet posteriors sidecar JSON file, optionally cross-checking its variables and states against a GraphSpec document to confirm consistency before use.

Instructions

Load and validate a bayesnet posteriors sidecar document. path selects the sidecar JSON file; graphspec_path optionally supplies a dafjev.bayesnet/1 GraphSpec document to cross-check the sidecar's variables and states against.

Same loader as the daf-jev posteriors-load CLI command (:func:daf_jev.bayesnet_posteriors.load_posteriors). On success returns {ok, format, evidence_count, variable_count, min_row_sum_deviation, max_row_sum_deviation}; when the document fails validation, returns {error, message, ok: false} instead.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "jev_posteriors_load"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
graphspec_pathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.2

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the success payload keys, the failure shape ({error, message, ok: false}), and the fact that validation is performed rather than assumed. It stops short of stating whether the file is only read (no mutation) and any size or permission constraints, which would matter for a file-touching tool.

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?

Purpose and parameter explanations are front-loaded and each sentence adds information. The reST role markup and CLI-equivalence note are slightly noisy for an agent-facing description, but nothing is redundant.

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?

For a two-parameter loader with no output schema, the description covers input meaning, validation behavior, and the return shape on both success and failure. Only peripheral details, such as whether the operation is strictly read-only and how paths resolve, are absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: path is identified as the sidecar JSON selector and graphspec_path as an optional GraphSpec document used for cross-checking variables and states. Remaining gaps are format-level (path resolution, expected file extension), but the semantic purpose of both parameters is clear.

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 opens with a specific verb pair and resource: 'Load and validate a bayesnet posteriors sidecar document.' That resource has no overlap with any sibling (ask, score, gate, docs, evaluate, models, reask, tiered), so an agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

It explains what the second parameter is for (optional cross-checking of variables and states) and ties the tool to a known CLI command, but it gives no guidance on when to reach for this versus other tooling or when the cross-check is required versus optional in practice. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than stated as a decision rule.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools