Skip to main content
Source: examples/mcp_server_fetch/

​
Overview

This example validates a simple MCP server that exposes a fetch tool to retrieve web content. The tests illustrate three styles (decorators, pytest, and legacy assertions) and demonstrate how to combine structural assertions, path constraints, and LLM judges.

Goals

  • Verify the agent calls the fetch tool when appropriate
  • Check extracted content for known signals (e.g., “Example Domain”)
  • Ensure efficient paths (no unnecessary steps)
  • Evaluate quality with rubric-based judges

What you’ll learn

  • Choosing assertions per outcome type (structural, tool, path, judge)
  • Designing resilient tests using immediate vs deferred checks
  • Reading metrics and span trees to diagnose behavior

​
Structure

  • datasets/ – YAML and Python datasets
  • tests/ – pytest style, decorators, assertions style
  • golden_paths/ – expected sequences
  • mcpeval.yaml – config for provider, reports

​
Run

cd examples/mcp_server_fetch
mcp-eval run tests/ --markdown test-reports/results.md --html test-reports/index.html

​
Assertion design and rationale

​
1) Prove the right tool was used

When a prompt requires reading a URL, we assert the fetch tool was called: 
await session.assert_that(Expect.tools.was_called("fetch"), name="fetch_tool_called")
Why: catches regressions where the agent “hallucinates” content without making tool calls, or switches to an unintended tool. Tip: combine with Expect.tools.count("fetch", 1) to detect duplicate calls.

​
2) Validate output structure rather than brittle text

For tool outputs, prefer structural checks over raw substring matching: 
await session.assert_that(
  Expect.tools.output_matches(
    tool_name="fetch",
    expected_output=r"use.*examples",
    match_type="regex",
    case_sensitive=False,
    field_path="content[0].text",
  ),
  name="fetch_output_match",
)
Why: tool responses are often nested structures. Field‑scoped, regex/partial checks are stable across formatting differences and small content changes.

​
3) Check content cues in the assistant’s final message

After tool use, assert the answer includes expected signals: 
resp = await agent.generate_str("Fetch https://example.com")
await session.assert_that(
  Expect.content.contains("Example Domain"), response=resp, name="contains_domain_text"
)
Why: validates the final user‑visible output, not just tool logs.

​
4) Constrain the path and efficiency

For simple fetch tasks, we expect a single fetch and minimal steps: 
await session.assert_that(
  Expect.path.efficiency(
    expected_tool_sequence=["fetch"],
    allow_extra_steps=1,
    tool_usage_limits={"fetch": 1},
  ),
  name="fetch_path_efficiency",
)
Why: detects backtracking, repeated tools, or detours. Combats “thrashing” behaviors.

​
5) Enforce iteration and latency budgets

await session.assert_that(Expect.performance.max_iterations(3), name="efficiency_check")
await session.assert_that(Expect.performance.response_time_under(10_000))
Why: catches runaway loops and slow paths early. Pairs well with CI budgets.

​
6) Use judges when “quality” is subjective

Some checks need subjective evaluation (e.g., “good summary”). Use rubric‑based judges: 
judge = Expect.judge.llm(
  rubric="Response should demonstrate successful content extraction and provide a meaningful summary",
  min_score=0.8,
  include_input=True,
)
await session.assert_that(judge, response=resp, name="extraction_quality_assessment")
Why: judges provide a tunable gate (min_score) for non‑deterministic tasks. In CI, keep them few and scoped.

​
7) Multi‑criteria judges for richer rubrics

from mcp_eval.evaluators import EvaluationCriterion

criteria = [
  EvaluationCriterion(name="accuracy", description="Factual correctness", weight=2.0, min_score=0.8),
  EvaluationCriterion(name="completeness", description="Covers key points", weight=1.5, min_score=0.7),
]
judge_mc = Expect.judge.multi_criteria(criteria, aggregate_method="weighted", use_cot=True)
await session.assert_that(judge_mc, response=resp, name="multi_criteria")
Why: breaks down quality into interpretable dimensions, enabling targeted improvements.

​
Immediate vs deferred: how these fit together

  • Immediate: content/judge checks that rely on response
  • Deferred: tools/path/performance checks that need session metrics
Design tip: make immediate assertions small and concrete; keep most structural checks deferred for stability.

​
What it demonstrates

  • Fetch tool end‑to‑end scenarios
  • Dataset style configs and generated cases
  • Tool sequence and output matching
  • Judge rubric for quality checks
Placeholder: add screenshots of the HTML report for a passing run and for a failure showing a mismatched tool output.
⌘I