Execute named variants of one experiment in sequence, wait for all to finish, and return a comparison table of results.
Run several named variants of one experiment one after another and return the comparison table. Blocks until all of them end.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| params | No | parameter overrides, by name (see get_experiment) | |
| variants | No | variant names; default: all of them |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: the call blocks until all variants finish. It omits failure semantics (what happens if one variant fails mid-sequence), whether results are persisted, and resource/duration implications of running several sequentially.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler, with the core action and the blocking behavior both front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
It correctly compensates for the absent output schema by naming the return value (comparison table) and covers blocking behavior for a nested-params tool. However, it leaves failure handling and result persistence unaddressed, which matters for a multi-run orchestration tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% — params and variants are documented in the schema, but the required name is bare. The description reinforces 'named variants of one experiment' and the default-to-all behavior is only in the schema, so it adds little beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (run) and resource (several named variants of one experiment) plus the sequential nature and the returned comparison table. It implicitly separates itself from run_experiment by operating on multiple variants, though it never names that sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that this is the multi-variant alternative to run_experiment, and nothing states prerequisites, cost, or when a single run or tune would be preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.