Causal Decision Agent

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

synth_report_to_file

Read-only

Generate a synthetic control method report and write it to a file, providing a documented causal analysis for evidence-backed business decisions.

Instructions

Generate an SCM report and write it directly to a file.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`time`	Yes	Time period column.
`unit`	Yes	Unit identifier column.
`alpha`	No	Significance level.
`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
`method`	No	SCM variant passed to ``synth()``.	classic
`output`	No	Output format: ``'text'``, ``'markdown'``, or ``'latex'``.	markdown
`outcome`	Yes	Outcome variable name.
`filename`	No	Output file path.	report.md
`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.
`sensitivity`	No	Whether to include the sensitivity analysis section.
`data_columns`	No	Optional column projection. Parquet/Feather/Stata loaders honour this for fast partial reads.
`treated_unit`	No	Identifier of the treated unit.
`data_sample_n`	No	Optional uniform random subsample size (seed=0, deterministic) — useful on huge panels.
`treatment_time`	No	First treatment period (inclusive).

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

Behavior1/5

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

The description says the tool 'write[s] it directly to a file,' which is a filesystem mutation, yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is an annotation contradiction. It also does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, where files are written relative to the filename parameter, or what side effects occur.

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 a single short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action, but it is under-specified for a tool with 16 parameters; the brevity is efficient yet not fully informative.

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 16 parameters, an output schema, and many output-related siblings, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits when to use file output, overwrite behavior, and the side-effect contradictions with annotations. An agent cannot confidently decide between this and the many synth_report or synth_to_* variants.

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%, so the 16 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, and it does not explain how its params relate to the SCM report generation. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 a specific verb and resource: generate an SCM report and write it to a file. This distinguishes it from report-generation tools that return content rather than persisting it, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or explain how it differs from synth_report, synth_to_markdown, etc.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives like synth_report, synth_to_markdown, synth_to_latex, or other output wrappers. The name hints at file output, but the description does not state conditions, exclusions, or preferred alternatives.

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

Deploy Server