Skip to content

MCP Evaluation Framework

Welcome to the MCP Evaluation Framework - a comprehensive tool for evaluating Model Context Protocol tool integrations.

What is the MCP Evaluation Framework?

The MCP Evaluation Framework is a data-driven, evidence-based system for evaluating how well MCP server tools integrate with your agentic workflow. Instead of guessing or estimating, this framework actually runs your tools through realistic scenarios and measures what matters: quality, efficiency, and capabilities.

Key Benefits:

  • No guesswork: Real execution metrics from actual tool usage
  • Universal compatibility: Works with ANY MCP tool via adapter pattern
  • Comprehensive insights: Measures quality, speed, and tool-specific capabilities
  • Clear decisions: Executive summaries with actionable recommendations (INTEGRATE, CONSIDER, or DON'T INTEGRATE)

Who Should Use This?

This framework is perfect for:

  • Teams evaluating MCP integrations - Needing objective data before committing resources
  • Tool vendors benchmarking tools - Wanting to understand performance and quality metrics
  • Engineering leaders making decisions - Requiring evidence-based recommendations for tool adoption
  • Developers building agentic systems - Seeking to understand tool capabilities and limitations

You should use this framework when:

  • Evaluating whether to integrate a new MCP tool into your workflow
  • Comparing multiple tools to choose the best option
  • Benchmarking tool improvements after updates
  • Documenting tool capabilities for your team

Quick Start

Ready to see it in action? Here's a 5-minute mock evaluation that needs no server setup:

# Navigate to the evaluation tests
cd tests/mcp_evaluation

# Run a mock evaluation (no MCP server needed!)
python run_evaluation.py

# Results will be saved in results/serena_mock_YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS/

What you'll see:

  • Console output showing progress through 3 test scenarios
  • A comprehensive report in results/serena_mock_*/report.md
  • Metrics tables showing quality and efficiency measurements
  • An executive summary with a clear recommendation

This mock evaluation demonstrates the complete workflow without needing any external dependencies. Perfect for trying out the framework!

Documentation Map

Choose your path based on what you need:

I Want To...

Evaluate a Tool → Start with USER_GUIDE.md

  • Complete end-to-end workflow
  • Step-by-step instructions
  • How to interpret results
  • Making integration decisions

Understand the Architecture → See Specs/MCP_EVALUATION_FRAMEWORK.md

  • Technical design decisions
  • Component breakdown
  • Adapter pattern details
  • Extension points

See Examples → Look in tests/mcp_evaluation/results/

  • Real evaluation reports
  • Mock vs real server comparisons
  • Example metrics and recommendations

Get Technical Details → Check tests/mcp_evaluation/README.md

  • Implementation internals
  • Test scenario definitions
  • Adapter creation guide
  • Framework extension

Key Concepts

Test Scenarios

The framework evaluates tools through 3 realistic scenarios:

  1. Navigation - File discovery, path resolution, directory traversal
  2. Analysis - Content inspection, pattern matching, data extraction
  3. Modification - File updates, content changes, operation safety

Each scenario tests multiple capabilities and measures both quality (correctness) and efficiency (speed, operation count).

Tool Adapters

Adapters are the framework's secret weapon - they enable ANY MCP tool to be evaluated without changing the core framework. An adapter implements three operations:

async def enable(self, shared_context):
    """Make tool available to agent"""

async def disable(self, shared_context):
    """Remove tool from agent"""

async def measure(self):
    """Collect tool-specific metrics"""

This clean interface means the framework works with filesystem tools, database tools, API clients, or any other MCP server type.

Metrics

The framework collects comprehensive metrics:

Quality Metrics:

  • Success rate (percentage of operations completed)
  • Accuracy (correctness of results)
  • Scenario-specific quality measurements

Efficiency Metrics:

  • Total execution time
  • Operation count (API calls, file operations, etc.)
  • Tool-specific efficiency measurements

Tool-Specific Metrics:

  • Custom measurements defined by the adapter
  • Capability flags (what the tool can/cannot do)
  • Performance characteristics

Reports

Every evaluation generates a markdown report with:

  1. Executive Summary - One-paragraph recommendation (INTEGRATE, CONSIDER, DON'T INTEGRATE)
  2. Metrics Tables - Baseline vs Enhanced comparison
  3. Capability Analysis - What the tool enables/improves
  4. Detailed Results - Per-scenario breakdowns
  5. Recommendations - Specific guidance for your team

Framework Status

Current Version: 1.0.0

Maturity: Production-ready

  • 6/6 tests passing (100% test coverage)
  • 1 complete tool adapter (Serena filesystem tools)
  • Generic design validated with multiple tool types
  • Used in production evaluations

Roadmap:

  • Additional reference adapters for common tool types
  • Performance benchmarking suite
  • Multi-tool comparison mode
  • Integration with amplihack workflows

Example: Reading a Report

Here's what a typical evaluation report tells you:

Executive Summary: INTEGRATE
The Serena filesystem tools provide significant value with 95% success rate
and 2.3x efficiency improvement over baseline. Strong recommendation for
navigation and analysis scenarios.

Quality Metrics:

- Success Rate: 95% (baseline: 60%)
- Accuracy: 98%
- Navigation Quality: Excellent
- Analysis Quality: Very Good

Efficiency Metrics:

- Total Time: 4.2s (baseline: 9.7s) - 56% faster
- Operations: 18 (baseline: 42) - 57% fewer

This tells you immediately:

  1. Should we integrate? Yes (INTEGRATE)
  2. How much better is it? ~2x efficiency, much higher success rate
  3. What does it do well? Navigation and analysis
  4. Are there concerns? None mentioned (modification might have caveats)

Architecture Overview

The framework is built with ruthless simplicity:

EvaluationFramework (coordinator)
    ├── BaseAdapter (tool interface)
    │   └── SerenaAdapter (filesystem implementation)
    ├── Test Scenarios (realistic workflows)
    │   ├── Navigation scenarios
    │   ├── Analysis scenarios
    │   └── Modification scenarios
    └── MetricsCollector (measurement)
        └── ReportGenerator (markdown output)

Design Principles:

  • Generic: Works with any tool via adapters
  • Evidence-based: Real execution, not synthetic benchmarks
  • Composable: Mix and match scenarios
  • Extensible: Add adapters without modifying core

Getting Started

Ready to evaluate your first tool? Follow this path:

  1. Run the Mock Evaluation (5 minutes)
cd tests/mcp_evaluation && python run_evaluation.py
  1. Read the Generated Report (10 minutes)
  2. Look in results/serena_mock_*/report.md

  3. Understand metrics and recommendations

  4. Follow the User Guide (30 minutes)

  5. USER_GUIDE.md walks through everything
  6. Learn how to evaluate your own tools

  7. Understand decision criteria

  8. Create a Custom Adapter (Optional)

  9. See tests/mcp_evaluation/README.md
  10. Implement the BaseAdapter interface
  11. Run evaluations on your tool

Common Questions

Q: Do I need an MCP server running to try this? A: No! The mock evaluation demonstrates everything without external dependencies.

Q: How long does an evaluation take? A: Mock evaluations: ~30 seconds. Real evaluations: 2-5 minutes depending on tool.

Q: Can I evaluate multiple tools at once? A: Currently one at a time, but multi-tool comparison mode is on the roadmap.

Q: What if my tool isn't a filesystem tool? A: No problem! Create a custom adapter. The framework is generic by design.

Q: How do I interpret the results? A: See the USER_GUIDE.md section "Phase 4: Analyzing Results" for detailed guidance.

Philosophy Alignment

This framework embodies amplihack's core principles:

  • Ruthless Simplicity - Minimal abstractions, clear contracts
  • Evidence Over Opinion - Real metrics, not guesswork
  • Brick & Stud Design - Self-contained, composable components
  • Zero-BS Implementation - Every function works, no stubs

Support and Contribution

Found a bug? Create a GitHub issue with:

  • Evaluation command you ran
  • Expected vs actual behavior
  • Generated report (if applicable)

Want to contribute an adapter? Great! See:

Have questions? Check the troubleshooting section in USER_GUIDE.md first.

Next Steps

Pick your path:

Last updated: November 2025 | Framework Version: 1.0.0