Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
atla-ai

Atla

Official
by atla-ai
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

Atla MCP 服务器

MCP 服务器实现为 LLM 提供标准化接口，以便与 Atla API 交互，实现最先进的 LLMJ 评估。

点击此处了解更多关于 Atla 的信息。点击此处了解更多关于模型上下文协议的信息。

可用工具

  • evaluate_llm_response ：使用给定的评估标准评估法学硕士 (LLM) 对提示的响应。此函数使用 Atla 评估模型，返回一个字典，其中包含模型响应的分数以及包含对模型响应反馈的文本评论。

  • 评估 LLM 的答案evaluate_llm_response_on_multiple_criteria符合多个评估标准。此函数使用 Atla 评估模型，返回一个字典列表，每个字典包含针对给定标准的评估分数和评论。

Related MCP server: Ollama MCP Server

用法

要使用 MCP 服务器，您需要一个 Atla API 密钥。您可以在这里找到您现有的 API 密钥，或在这里创建一个新的。

安装

我们建议使用uv来管理 Python 环境。安装说明请参阅此处。

手动运行服务器

安装uv并拥有 Atla API 密钥后，您可以使用uvx （由uv提供）手动运行 MCP 服务器：

ATLA_API_KEY=<your-api-key> uvx atla-mcp-server

连接到服务器

遇到问题或需要帮助连接到其他客户端？欢迎随时提交问题或联系我们！

OpenAI代理SDK

有关将 OpenAI Agents SDK 与 MCP 服务器一起使用的更多详细信息，请参阅官方文档。

  1. 安装 OpenAI Agents SDK：

pip install openai-agents

  1. 使用 OpenAI Agents SDK 连接到服务器：

import os

from agents import Agent
from agents.mcp import MCPServerStdio

async with MCPServerStdio(
        params={
            "command": "uvx",
            "args": ["atla-mcp-server"],
            "env": {"ATLA_API_KEY": os.environ.get("ATLA_API_KEY")}
        }
    ) as atla_mcp_server:
    ...

克劳德桌面

有关在 Claude Desktop 中配置 MCP 服务器的更多详细信息，请参阅官方 MCP 快速入门指南。

  1. 将以下内容添加到您的claude_desktop_config.json文件中：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "atla-mcp-server": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["atla-mcp-server"],
      "env": {
        "ATLA_API_KEY": "<your-atla-api-key>"
      }
    }
  }
}

  1. 重新启动 Claude Desktop以应用更改。

您现在应该在可用的 MCP 工具列表中看到来自atla-mcp-server的选项。

光标

有关在 Cursor 中配置 MCP 服务器的更多详细信息，请参阅官方文档。

  1. 将以下内容添加到您的.cursor/mcp.json文件：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "atla-mcp-server": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["atla-mcp-server"],
      "env": {
        "ATLA_API_KEY": "<your-atla-api-key>"
      }
    }
  }
}

您现在应该在可用的 MCP 服务器列表中看到atla-mcp-server 。

贡献

欢迎贡献！详情请参阅CONTRIBUTING.md文件。

执照

本项目遵循 MIT 许可证。详情请参阅LICENSE文件。

Available Tools

2 tools
evaluate_llm_responseA

Evaluate an LLM's response to a prompt using a given evaluation criteria.

This function uses an Atla evaluation model under the hood to return a dictionary
containing a score for the model's response and a textual critique containing
feedback on the model's response.

Returns:
    dict[str, str]: A dictionary containing the evaluation score and critique, in
        the format `{"score": <score>, "critique": <critique>}`.
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
evaluation_criteriaYesThe specific criteria or instructions on which to evaluate the model output. A good evaluation criteria should provide the model with: (1) a description of the evaluation task, (2) a rubric of possible scores and their corresponding criteria, and (3) a final sentence clarifying expected score format. A good evaluation criteria should also be specific and focus on a single aspect of the model output. To evaluate a model's response on multiple criteria, use the `evaluate_llm_response_on_multiple_criteria` function and create individual criteria for each relevant evaluation task. Typical rubrics score responses either on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 or binary scale with scores of 'Yes' or 'No', depending on the specific evaluation task.
llm_promptYesThe prompt given to an LLM to generate the `llm_response` to be evaluated.
llm_responseYesThe output generated by the model in response to the `llm_prompt`, which needs to be evaluated.
expected_llm_outputNoA reference or ideal answer to compare against the `llm_response`. This is useful in cases where a specific output is expected from the model. Defaults to None.
llm_contextNoAdditional context or information provided to the model during generation. This is useful in cases where the model was provided with additional information that is not part of the `llm_prompt` or `expected_llm_output` (e.g., a RAG retrieval context). Defaults to None.
model_idNoThe Atla model ID to use for evaluation. `atla-selene` is the flagship Atla model, optimized for the highest all-round performance. `atla-selene-mini` is a compact model that is generally faster and cheaper to run. Defaults to `atla-selene`.atla-selene

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription

No output parameters

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that the tool uses an Atla evaluation model under the hood and returns a dictionary. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not mention potential rate limits, cost implications, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but lacks deeper operational transparency.

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 concise with three sentences covering purpose, internal mechanism, and output format. It is front-loaded and well-structured. A minor deduction because the return type is specified in a separate block rather than integrated into the prose.

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 complexity of 6 parameters (3 required) and the presence of an output schema (described in the return type), the description provides a complete overview. The parameter-level descriptions are very detailed, covering formatting and examples. The sibling tool is referenced, ensuring completeness around alternatives. Slightly lacking in explaining edge cases or error handling.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides; it mainly reiterates the return format. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: evaluating an LLM response using given criteria. It specifies that it uses an Atla evaluation model internally and returns a dictionary with score and critique. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by referencing evaluate_llm_response_on_multiple_criteria in the evaluation_criteria parameter description.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The evaluation_criteria parameter description explicitly instructs to use the sibling tool for multiple criteria, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative. Additionally, the parameter descriptions include examples and detailed instructions on crafting evaluation criteria, which serves as usage guidance.

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

evaluate_llm_response_on_multiple_criteriaA

Evaluate an LLM's response to a prompt across multiple evaluation criteria.

This function uses an Atla evaluation model under the hood to return a list of
dictionaries, each containing an evaluation score and critique for a given
criteria.

Returns:
    list[dict[str, str]]: A list of dictionaries containing the evaluation score
        and critique, in the format `{"score": <score>, "critique": <critique>}`.
        The order of the dictionaries in the list will match the order of the
        criteria in the `evaluation_criteria_list` argument.
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
evaluation_criteria_listYes
llm_promptYesThe prompt given to an LLM to generate the `llm_response` to be evaluated.
llm_responseYesThe output generated by the model in response to the `llm_prompt`, which needs to be evaluated.
expected_llm_outputNoA reference or ideal answer to compare against the `llm_response`. This is useful in cases where a specific output is expected from the model. Defaults to None.
llm_contextNoAdditional context or information provided to the model during generation. This is useful in cases where the model was provided with additional information that is not part of the `llm_prompt` or `expected_llm_output` (e.g., a RAG retrieval context). Defaults to None.
model_idNoThe Atla model ID to use for evaluation. `atla-selene` is the flagship Atla model, optimized for the highest all-round performance. `atla-selene-mini` is a compact model that is generally faster and cheaper to run. Defaults to `atla-selene`.atla-selene

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description adds some behavioral context (uses Atla model under the hood, returns list of dicts) but does not disclose side effects, cost, failure modes, or restrictions. It adds value beyond annotations but falls short of full transparency.

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 concise (two sentences plus a return format note) and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value; no obvious fluff. Minor improvement possible by incorporating usage guidance.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, output schema exists), the description provides basic purpose and return format but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral warnings, and parameter elaboration. It is incomplete for fully understanding when and how to use the tool effectively.

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 high (83%), and the description does not add new meaning to individual parameters beyond the schema. It explains the return format, which aids understanding of the output but does not directly enhance parameter semantics.

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 that the tool evaluates an LLM response across multiple criteria using an Atla model and returns a list of dictionaries with score and critique. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'evaluate_llm_response' by emphasizing 'multiple evaluation criteria', making the purpose and differentiation explicit.

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 multiple criteria but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the single-criterion sibling. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving guidance implicit.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 2 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • Addedevaluate_llm_response
    • Addedevaluate_llm_response_on_multiple_criteria
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one evaluates a single criterion, the other evaluates multiple criteria. Their names and descriptions make the difference unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun_qualifier pattern, starting with 'evaluate_llm_response' and differentiating with '_on_multiple_criteria'. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count3/5

With only 2 tools, the server feels thin. While the tools cover the core evaluation functionality, a typical well-scoped server has 3-15 tools, making this borderline insufficient.

Completeness3/5

The tools provide basic evaluation for single and multiple criteria, but lack supporting tools such as managing criteria, listing models, or retrieving history. The surface is minimal and may leave agents with limited options.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

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/atla-ai/atla-mcp-server'

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