Skip to main content
Glama
multivon-ai

multivon-mcp

Official
by multivon-ai

eval_custom_rubric

Score an LLM output against your own list of yes/no quality checks to evaluate compliance with custom criteria.

Instructions

Score an output against your own list of yes/no quality checks.

Each criterion is a [question, expect_yes] pair. The judge answers each question with yes/no; the score is the fraction answered as expected. Best for compliance-style rubrics where each aspect should be auditable separately.

Args: input: The prompt the LLM was responding to. output: The LLM-generated response. criteria: A list of [question_str, expect_yes_bool] pairs. Example: [["Does it cite a source?", true], ["Does it speculate beyond the source?", false]]. name: Optional label for the rubric (appears in the result dict's evaluator field). context: Optional context string for the judge to consider (e.g. retrieved RAG context, source document). judge_model: Provider:model for the QAG judge.

Returns: {"score": 0.0-1.0, "passed": bool, "reason": str, "threshold": float, "evaluator": <name>}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYes
outputYes
criteriaYes
nameNocustom_rubric
contextNo
judge_modelNoanthropic:claude-haiku-4-5

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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. It transparently explains the scoring mechanism (yes/no per criterion, fraction correct) and notes the use of a judge model. It does not disclose any destructive behavior (none expected) and adequately describes the evaluation process.

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?

The description is well-structured with an introduction, use-case paragraph, and enumerated arguments. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters and a return value. A minor improvement could be trimming some redundant phrasing, but overall it is concise and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters with no schema descriptions, and an output schema is present, the description covers all parameters and the return value (mentioning keys like score, passed, reason). It provides enough context for correct invocation, including examples and default values, making it complete for an evaluation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It provides an Args section with clear definitions, including an example for the 'criteria' parameter that adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only specification. All six parameters are explained with defaults and types.

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 states 'Score an output against your own list of yes/no quality checks', clearly identifying the tool's purpose as a custom rubric evaluator. It distinguishes from sibling evaluation tools by noting it's for compliance-style rubrics, making its specific role clear.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Best for compliance-style rubrics where each aspect should be auditable separately', providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/multivon-ai/multivon-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server