Causal Decision Agent

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

cuminc

Read-only

Compute cumulative incidence functions for competing risks with Aalen-Johansen estimation, including confidence bands and Gray's group comparisons to support evidence-based decisions.

Instructions

Cumulative incidence functions for competing risks (Aalen-Johansen). Validation: validated evidence tier (known-truth, reference, external-parity, or Monte Carlo artifact).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`alpha`	No	Significance level for the confidence bands.
`event`	Yes	Column name for the event indicator. ``0`` = censored; ``1, 2, ...`` = competing causes.
`group`	No	Column name for a grouping variable. When supplied, CIFs are estimated per group and Gray's K-sample test is reported per cause.
`detail`	No	Payload depth: 'minimal' (~150 tokens) for sub-step calls where only the point estimate is needed; 'standard' (~1K tokens) for diagnostics + coefficient table; 'agent' (~2K tokens, default) adds violations / next_steps / suggested_functions so the LLM can plan its next call without another round-trip.	agent
`duration`	Yes	Column name for the follow-up time.
`as_handle`	No	If true, cache the fitted result on the server and return result_id + result_uri alongside the JSON payload so a subsequent tools/call can chain without re-running.
`data_path`	Yes	Absolute path or URL to a data file. Supported: .csv / .tsv / .txt (delimited), .parquet / .pq, .feather / .arrow, .xlsx / .xls, .dta (Stata), .json / .jsonl. Schemes: file://, s3://, gs://, https://.
`result_id`	No	Optional handle to a previously-fitted result (returned by an earlier call when as_handle=true). Tools that operate on a fitted object accept this in place of re-supplying data_path + columns.
`data_columns`	No	Optional column projection. Parquet/Feather/Stata loaders honour this for fast partial reads.
`data_sample_n`	No	Optional uniform random subsample size (seed=0, deterministic) — useful on huge panels.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a 'Validation' tier line, but it is cryptic and does not disclose concrete behavioral traits—such as returned objects, use of grouping for Gray's test, or caching behavior via as_handle. It does not contradict the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is concise, but the second sentence about 'Validation: validated evidence tier' is vague and does not help an agent invoke the tool. It adds confusion rather than actionable context, so it does not earn its place.

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?

Despite full schema documentation and an output schema, the description lacks context that matters for correct selection: when to prefer cuminc over kaplan_meier or finegray, and what the validation tier means for interpreting output. For a 10-parameter competing-risks tool, this is insufficient.

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?

All 10 parameters have schema descriptions, including event coding, data path formats, and the detail enum. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description states the resource and method clearly: cumulative incidence functions for competing risks using Aalen-Johansen. It differentiates from siblings like kaplan_meier and finegray via the competing-risks framing, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'estimates'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose cuminc over closely related tools such as kaplan_meier, finegray, or survival_sensitivity. The description does not mention typical use cases, data requirements, or prerequisites beyond what the schema lists.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server