Skip to main content
Glama
getsimba-ai

Simba MCP Server

Official
by getsimba-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

List Incrementality Tests

list_incrementality_tests
Read-onlyIdempotent

List a project's recorded, non-retired incrementality tests. Filter by type, status, or channel and page results with a cursor.

Instructions

List a project's recorded (not retired) incrementality tests: {items: [{id, name, type, status, channel, model_channel, start_date, end_date, measured_through, kpi, result, spend, source_tool, has_supplied_row, current_version, used_by}], next_cursor}; used_by counts the model revisions built from the test. Null and negative results are listed like any other. Filter by type, status or channel. Paging is opt-in: pass limit (1-200) and send next_cursor back unchanged; null means the end. Requires the read:models scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNo
limitNo
cursorNo
statusNo
channelNo
project_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.17.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "enum": [
-      "geo",
-      "owned_media_ab",
-      "platform_lift"
-    ],
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "enum": [
+      "geo",
+      "owned_media_ab",
+      "platform_lift",
+      "time_holdout"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. Addedv0.12.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the paging contract (opt-in, cursor echoed back unchanged, null = end), the limit range 1-200, and the required read:models scope. It stops short of describing error behavior or ordering guarantees.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, which is good, but it then enumerates the full field list of the response object even though an output schema exists — that enumeration is largely redundant. The remaining sentences about filtering, paging and scope do earn their place.

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 filtered, paginated list tool, the description covers scope, filtering, paging contract and auth requirement, and an output schema already documents the return shape (making the field enumeration unnecessary rather than a gap). It is essentially complete for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does for most parameters: type/status/channel as filters, limit with its 1-200 bound, and cursor semantics (echo next_cursor back, null means end). Only project_id is left to inference, and the description's 'next_cursor' naming does not exactly match the 'cursor' input param.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (a project's incrementality tests) with a scope qualifier ('recorded, not retired') that separates it from get_incrementality_test, create_incrementality_test, import_incrementality_tests and recommend_incrementality_tests without needing 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?

Gives operational context (filter by type/status/channel, paging is opt-in, pass limit and echo next_cursor), but never states when to choose this over get_incrementality_test or the other incrementality siblings, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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