Skip to main content
Glama
multivon-ai

multivon-mcp

Official
by multivon-ai

eval_g_eval

Score LLM responses on holistic qualities like creativity or tone using a plain-English criterion. Returns a numeric score and short reason, averaged over multiple runs to improve reliability.

Instructions

G-Eval style holistic scoring against a plain-English criterion.

The judge reads the criterion and the output, then returns a numeric score from 0.0 to 1.0 plus a short reason. To reduce single-sample variance the prompt is run twice by default and the scores averaged (position/framing bias mitigation per the original G-Eval paper).

Best for fuzzy or holistic qualities: creativity, tone, style, helpfulness, conciseness. For criteria with multiple discrete aspects, prefer eval_custom_rubric.

Args: input: The prompt the LLM was responding to. output: The LLM-generated response to score. criteria: A plain-English description of what to score on, e.g. "Is the response concise, polite, and free of jargon?". name: Optional label for the evaluator instance (appears in the result dict's evaluator field). runs: How many independent judgements to average. Default 2. judge_model: Provider:model for the scoring judge.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYes
outputYes
criteriaYes
nameNog_eval
runsNo
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 full burden. It discloses that two independent runs are averaged by default to mitigate position/framing bias, and describes the return format. It does not discuss authorization, rate limits, or destructive effects, but those are not critical for a scoring tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured with a summary line, usage guidance, parameter list, and return format. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (described in text), the description is comprehensive. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, return format, and sibling comparison. No gaps are evident for the tool's complexity.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema), but the description's Args section provides detailed semantics for each parameter: input, output, criteria, name, runs, judge_model. It explains defaults and purpose, fully compensating for the schema's lack.

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 clearly states it performs 'G-Eval style holistic scoring against a plain-English criterion', using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling eval_custom_rubric by noting that tool is better for 'criteria with multiple discrete aspects'.

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 recommends this tool for 'fuzzy or holistic qualities' and explicitly names eval_custom_rubric as an alternative. It also explains the dual-run averaging for variance reduction. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond the alternative mention.

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