Skip to main content
Glama

batch_judge

Run batch evaluations on multiple items using a diverse pool of judges. Returns per-item scores, summary statistics, and error counts with incremental results and resume support.

Instructions

Run judge evaluations at scale on a list of items.

Processes items with bounded concurrency using a shared pool of diverse judges. Returns per-item scores, summary statistics (mean, stdev, min, max per dimension), and error counts.

Each item in the list should have a "prompt" key with the evaluation prompt, and an optional "metadata" key for tracking (e.g. language, entry ID).

When results_file is set, each scored item is appended as a JSON line immediately after scoring. On interruption, the file contains all completed items. On resume (same results_file), already-scored indices are skipped automatically.

Args: items: List of {"prompt": "...", "metadata": {...}} dicts rubric: List of scoring dimensions (e.g. ["accuracy", "naturalness"]) scale: Rating scale as "min-max" (default "1-5") judge_count: Judges per item (default 3) min_tier: Minimum quality tier for judge selection (default "A") free_only: If true, only use free models as judges output_format: How judges format scores — "csv" (default) or "json" concurrency: Max items evaluated in parallel (default 5) max_tokens: Max response tokens per judge (default 256) temperature: Sampling temperature (default 0.0) results_file: Path to JSONL file for incremental writes and resume support

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes
scaleNo1-5
rubricYes
min_tierNoA
free_onlyNo
max_tokensNo
concurrencyNo
judge_countNo
temperatureNo
results_fileNo
output_formatNocsv

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides good transparency: it explains bounded concurrency, shared judge pool, incremental file writes, interrupt handling, and resume capability. It adds behavioral context beyond the parameter schema.

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 moderately long but well-structured with a clear opening sentence and a bulleted Args section. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 11 parameters and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers return values (per-item scores, summary statistics, error counts) and incremental write behavior. It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand usage and outcomes.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter in the Args block (e.g., items structure, rubric dimensions, scale format, default values). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 runs judge evaluations at scale on a list of items, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'judge' (single item evaluation) and 'batch_run' (different purpose). The verb 'run judge evaluations' and resource 'list of items' are specific.

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 explains how to structure items with 'prompt' and optional 'metadata' keys, and details resume behavior for results_file. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'judge' for single items, though the context of batch vs single can be inferred from sibling names.

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/srclight/model-radar'

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