Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
outs-mcp

outs-mcp

by outs-mcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

The study

get_study
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch published OUTS study data to review held-out results, 95% ranges, round verdicts, and exit or limit details by selecting a summary, rounds, exits, or limits part.

Instructions

The published OUTS study, as published: held-out results with 95% ranges and the verdict of each round. part: summary (default), rounds, exits (exit rules and costs), limits.

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": "get_study"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partNosummary (default), rounds, exits or limits

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the content is 'as published' (i.e., static recorded results) and that it contains held-out numbers and verdicts, but says nothing about size, freshness, or failure modes.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, with the part options listed at the end where an agent will look. The phrase 'published ... as published' is mildly redundant but costs little.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-enum read tool with annotations and no output schema, this is adequate but thin. It leaves ambiguous what 'OUTS' refers to and gives no hint of the shape of the returned data, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still earns extra credit by explaining what each enum value contains, notably that 'exits' means exit rules and costs, which the schema text does not say.

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?

States a specific resource (the published OUTS study) and what it returns: held-out results with 95% ranges and per-round verdicts. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_performance and backtest, though the term 'OUTS' is unexplained jargon an agent may not resolve.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description never says when to fetch this study versus get_performance, backtest, or get_strategy results. Only the default part value is given, which is parameter behavior, not usage 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