Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EvalForge Lite

EvalForge Lite

by thejaredchapman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_report_csv

Export a run's evaluation results to CSV, one row per test case and model cell. If no run_id is given, it reports on the default run.

Instructions

Get a CSV export for a run, one row per (test case x model) cell. Defaults to the most recent run.

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_report_csv"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses output shape (one row per test case x model) and the default-run behavior, but says nothing about whether the result is a file path, URL, or inline text, nor about permissions, size, or failure modes for an unknown run_id.

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?

Two tight sentences with no padding; the core action and granularity come first, and the default behavior follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-param export tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action, output granularity, and default behavior. It is missing the return mechanics (file vs inline content) and where run_id values come from, which an agent calling it blind would need.

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?

With a single optional parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does by explaining that omitting run_id falls back to the most recent run. It does not state the expected run_id format or how to obtain one (e.g., via list_runs), so the semantics are only half-covered.

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 verb and resource ('Get a CSV export for a run') and adds the row granularity ('one row per (test case x model) cell'), which is concrete and useful. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_report via the CSV format, but never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Defaults to the most recent run' tells the agent the run_id is optional and what happens when omitted, which is genuine usage context. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over get_report or how it relates to run_comparison/list_runs, so alternatives are only implied by the format.

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