Skip to main content
Glama
vosesoftware

ModelRisk MCP

Official
by vosesoftware

backtest_output

Validate a simulation model's predicted distribution against realized actuals by computing Probability Integral Transform, interval coverage, and bias.

Instructions

ModelRisk: Backtest a simulation output against realised actuals — does the model's predicted distribution match what actually happened? Reports the Probability Integral Transform (PIT, ~0.5 mean and uniform if calibrated), the empirical coverage of central prediction intervals (e.g. ~90% of actuals should fall in the 90% interval), and bias. Pass the historical actuals you want to validate against. Reads the output's per-iteration samples — run the simulation first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
max_nNoMax samples to read (default 100 000).
actualsYesRealised historical values.
intervalsNoCentral intervals to check coverage of. Default [0.5,0.8,0.9,0.95].
output_nameYesVoseOutput name to validate.
workbook_nameNoWorkbook name. Omit for the active workbook.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
biasYesactuals_mean - model_mean.
verdictYesShort calibration verdict.
coverageYesEmpirical vs nominal coverage of central prediction intervals.
mean_pitYesMean Probability Integral Transform; ~0.5 if calibrated.
n_actualsYes
model_meanYes
output_nameYes
sample_sizeYes
actuals_meanYes
frac_below_medianYesFraction of actuals below the model median; ~0.5 if calibrated.
pit_uniformity_ksYesKS distance of the PIT values from Uniform(0,1); 0 = perfectly calibrated.
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool reads per-iteration samples and reports metrics without modification, but does not explicitly declare read-only behavior, auth needs, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences packed with information: main action, metrics reported, usage requirement. No filler or unnecessary words. Front-loads key verb and resource.

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 the tool's complexity (5 params, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, prerequisites, and key metrics. Minor misses like explicit read-only declaration but overall complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining the role of actuals, output_name, and the prerequisite of running simulation first. It also clarifies that intervals default is used, adding context beyond 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: backtest simulation output against actuals to assess calibration. It specifically mentions PIT, coverage, and bias, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_simulation_results or compare_distributions.

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?

The description implies usage after running a simulation ('run the simulation first') and requires passing actuals. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, leaving agent without clear triage guidance.

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/vosesoftware/modelrisk-mcp'

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