Skip to main content
Glama
seanshin0214

Dr. QuantMaster MCP Server

by seanshin0214

ml_for_causal

Apply machine learning methods like Double ML and Causal Forest to estimate causal effects including ATE, ATT, CATE, and LATE for quantitative research.

Instructions

인과추론용 ML 가이드 (Double ML, Causal Forest)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
methodYes방법
targetNo추정 대상

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function implementing the ml_for_causal tool. It takes input args, extracts the method (e.g., double_ml, causal_forest), and returns a description of the method along with sample R code for implementation.
    function handleMlForCausal(args: Record<string, unknown>) {
      return {
        method: args.method,
        description: {
          double_ml: "Debiased/Double ML - nuisance parameter estimation with ML",
          causal_forest: "Heterogeneous treatment effects via random forests"
        },
        r_code: "library(DoubleML)\n# or library(grf) for causal forest"
      };
    }
  • The tool definition including name, description, and inputSchema for validation (method required, target optional). This is part of the exported tools array.
    {
      name: "ml_for_causal",
      description: "인과추론용 ML 가이드 (Double ML, Causal Forest)",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          method: { type: "string", enum: ["double_ml", "causal_forest", "lasso_iv", "honest_tree"], description: "방법" },
          target: { type: "string", enum: ["ate", "att", "cate", "late"], description: "추정 대상" },
        },
        required: ["method"],
      },
    },
  • Registration of the tool handler in the main handleToolCall switch statement, mapping the tool name to its handler function.
    case "ml_for_causal":
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only guide, a code generator, an analysis runner, or something else. There's no information about permissions needed, rate limits, output format, or any behavioral characteristics. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise - a single phrase with zero wasted words. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the structure is front-loaded with the core concept. Every element in the description (Korean phrase and method examples) directly relates to the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does (generate code? provide explanations? run analysis?), what users can expect as output, or how to interpret results. The lack of behavioral transparency combined with minimal purpose clarity makes this inadequate for a tool that appears to guide users through complex ML methods for causal inference.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters having enum descriptions in Korean ('방법' for method, '추정 대상' for target). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions 'Double ML, Causal Forest' which aligns with the method enum values, but doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '인과추론용 ML 가이드 (Double ML, Causal Forest)' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ml_for_causal' in Korean with method examples. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., generates code, provides explanations, runs analysis) or what resource it operates on. While it mentions specific methods, it doesn't clearly distinguish this tool's function from sibling tools like 'get_method_guide' or 'suggest_method'.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that could potentially overlap with causal ML guidance (e.g., 'get_method_guide', 'suggest_method', 'causal_design_guide'), but the description offers no explicit or implicit context about when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives.

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/seanshin0214/quantmaster-mcp-server'

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