Skip to main content
Glama

llm_quality_guard

Monitor quality scores for routed models and receive alerts when degradation is detected below 0.7 threshold.

Instructions

Show quality scores per model with degradation alerts (v6.2).

Displays rolling average judge scores for all routed models over the past N days. Alerts if any model's score < 0.7 with sufficient samples (quality degradation).

Args: days: Number of days of history to analyze (default 7).

Returns: Formatted table with model scores, trend arrows, and alerts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNo

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 discloses key behaviors: rolling average calculation, alert threshold (<0.7) with sufficient samples, and output format (table with trend arrows). It lacks details on what constitutes 'sufficient samples' but is otherwise transparent.

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?

The description is four sentences plus Args/Returns, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only monitoring tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, alerts, and return structure. Minor gap: 'sufficient samples' is not quantified, but overall complete given the output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the only parameter 'days' as 'Number of days of history to analyze (default 7)', adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 the tool shows quality scores per model with degradation alerts, specifying rolling average judge scores and an alert threshold of 0.7. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like llm_quality_report and llm_model_eval by focusing on degradation detection and trend arrows.

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 for monitoring model quality with degradation alerts but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are mentioned.

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/ypollak2/llm-router'

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