Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Metrx MCP Server

Metrx MCP Server

by metrxbots
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Trial Plans

metrx_get_trials
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve organization-scoped pre-registered trial plans, including regime, primary metric, sample plan, models, status, and verdict ID for read-only review and analysis.

Instructions

Org-scoped pre-registered trial plans: regime, primary metric, margin, the frozen sample plan (pre-registration), models, status (registered/concluded/voided) and the concluding verdict id. Read-only. Response is envelope-shaped: every numeric leaf is a MeasuredValue {value, ci_low, ci_high, method, data_through}. ci fields are null unless the source payload carries a real confidence interval — never fabricated. Requires an API key with the 'read' scope.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "metrx_get_trials"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the envelope-shaped response, the MeasuredValue leaf structure {value, ci_low, ci_high, method, data_through}, the guarantee that ci fields are null rather than fabricated, and the required 'read' API-key scope. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before consuming the output.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its fields, then the response-shape caveat, then the auth requirement. Every sentence carries information, though the first sentence packs a dense field list and the MeasuredValue sentence is notation-heavy; a slightly lighter structure would read better without losing content.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so completely: envelope shape, numeric leaf structure, CI null semantics, status vocabulary, and auth scope. Nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret this zero-parameter tool is missing.

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 zero input parameters there is nothing for the schema to document, so the baseline is 4. The description wisely spends its words on the response contract instead, which is the only semantic surface this tool has.

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?

The description names a specific resource (org-scoped pre-registered trial plans) and enumerates exactly what each plan contains: regime, primary metric, margin, frozen sample plan, models, status enum values, and concluding verdict id. An agent knows precisely what comes back. It stops short of an explicit verb ('list all trials') or naming a distinguishing sibling such as metrx_get_verdicts, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 only implied: the tool is read-only and org-scoped, so an agent can infer it is a lookup. There is no statement of when to prefer this over metrx_get_verdicts (the concluding verdict id suggests a relationship) or any precondition beyond the API-key scope. Adequate but with clear gaps in routing guidance.

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