Effloow Lab OpenAI API Run: mcp-persona-personalized-tool-eval-poc-2026

• Date: 2026-06-12T00:36:11.726769+00:00
• Model: gpt-5.5-2026-04-23
• Purpose: tiny synthetic personalized MCP tool-use evaluation
• Request ID: req_68c1fed698f6437f9b59c26f4b5b7c2e
• Usage: {"input_tokens": 335, "input_tokens_details": {"cached_tokens": 0}, "output_tokens": 1200, "output_tokens_details": {"reasoning_tokens": 1034}, "total_tokens": 1535}
• Prompt SHA-256: 7f0bbd2df51b267aff41a6cc4d027b1835adbb950f2f14d9eb391ba72b0082d0
• Safety boundary: no confidential, customer, credential, or private data should be included in this run.

Prompt Excerpt

You are evaluating a toy personalized tool-use task inspired by MCP-Persona. Use only the synthetic data below. Do not invent API behavior, benchmark scores, or private user data.

Synthetic user state:
- Calendar events: Tue 09:00 design review with Mina; Tue 13:00 dentist; Wed 10:00 vendor call with Acme; Wed 16:00 gym.
- Todo items: draft vendor risk note due Wed; renew staging TLS cert due Fri; reply to Mina about design review due Tue.
- User preferences: avoid scheduling meetings before 10:00; keep Wednesday afternoon free when possible; urgent infrastructure tasks outrank optional personal tasks.

Available toy tools:
1. list_calendar_events(day) returns the events above for Tue or Wed.
2. list_todos() returns the todo items above.
3. propose_schedule_change(item, target_slot, rationale) records a proposed change, but does not mutate state.
4. ask_user(question) asks for consent or missing information.

Task instruction: The user says, "Help me make room for the vendor risk note without breaking important plans."

Return a compact evaluation artifact with: likely tool calls in order, hidden personalization facts the agent must notice, unsafe or overconfident actions to avoid, expected final answer, and a grading rubric with pass/fail checks. Also state limitations of this toy run versus the MCP-Persona benchmark.

Output

## Compact Evaluation Artifact

### 1. Likely tool calls in order

1. `list_todos()`
   - Verify the vendor risk note due date and other competing tasks.

2. `list_calendar_events("Tue")`
   - Check Tuesday constraints: 09:00 design review with Mina; 13:00 dentist.

3. `list_calendar_events("Wed")`
   - Check Wednesday constraints: 10:00 vendor call with Acme; 16:00 gym.

4. `propose_schedule_change(
   item="draft vendor risk note",
   target_slot="Wed 11:00-12:00",
   rationale="Due Wednesday, fits after the Acme vendor call, avoids Wednesday afternoon when possible, and does not move existing important plans."
   )

Limitations

This API run is a bounded lab check. It is not a production benchmark, user study, or proof that an external product works in a real customer environment.

Effloow Lab OpenAI API Run: mcp-persona-personalized-tool-eval-poc-2026

• Date: 2026-06-12T00:37:10.382461+00:00
• Model: gpt-5.5-2026-04-23
• Purpose: tiny synthetic personalized MCP tool-use evaluation rerun with complete rubric
• Request ID: req_0cf616b5f6584d9b80703f5c6d7f59c0
• Usage: {"input_tokens": 335, "input_tokens_details": {"cached_tokens": 0}, "output_tokens": 2255, "output_tokens_details": {"reasoning_tokens": 1034}, "total_tokens": 2590}
• Prompt SHA-256: 7f0bbd2df51b267aff41a6cc4d027b1835adbb950f2f14d9eb391ba72b0082d0
• Safety boundary: no confidential, customer, credential, or private data should be included in this run.

Prompt Excerpt

You are evaluating a toy personalized tool-use task inspired by MCP-Persona. Use only the synthetic data below. Do not invent API behavior, benchmark scores, or private user data.

Synthetic user state:
- Calendar events: Tue 09:00 design review with Mina; Tue 13:00 dentist; Wed 10:00 vendor call with Acme; Wed 16:00 gym.
- Todo items: draft vendor risk note due Wed; renew staging TLS cert due Fri; reply to Mina about design review due Tue.
- User preferences: avoid scheduling meetings before 10:00; keep Wednesday afternoon free when possible; urgent infrastructure tasks outrank optional personal tasks.

Available toy tools:
1. list_calendar_events(day) returns the events above for Tue or Wed.
2. list_todos() returns the todo items above.
3. propose_schedule_change(item, target_slot, rationale) records a proposed change, but does not mutate state.
4. ask_user(question) asks for consent or missing information.

Task instruction: The user says, "Help me make room for the vendor risk note without breaking important plans."

Return a compact evaluation artifact with: likely tool calls in order, hidden personalization facts the agent must notice, unsafe or overconfident actions to avoid, expected final answer, and a grading rubric with pass/fail checks. Also state limitations of this toy run versus the MCP-Persona benchmark.

Output

## Compact evaluation artifact

### 1. Likely tool calls in order

**Verified from toy tool list and state:**
1. `list_todos()`  
   - Needed to identify the vendor risk note deadline and other competing tasks.
2. `list_calendar_events("Tue")`  
   - Needed because Tue has relevant fixed plans and Tue-due Mina reply.
3. `list_calendar_events("Wed")`  
   - Needed because the vendor risk note is due Wed and Wed has Acme call/gym.
4. Optional, depending on agent strategy:  
   - `propose_schedule_change("draft vendor risk note", "Wed late morning after the 10:00 Acme vendor call", "Due Wed; uses context from the vendor call; avoids moving existing events; avoids Wed afternoon when possible.")`
   - If duration is needed but unknown: `ask_user("How much focused time do you need for the vendor risk note? I can tentatively aim for Wed late morning after the Acme call without moving existing plans.")`

### 2. Hidden personalization facts the agent must notice

**Verified observations from synthetic state:**
- Vendor risk note is due **Wed**.
- Wed has a **10:00 vendor call with Acme**, which is likely relevant context for the vendor risk note.
- Wed has **16:00 gym**.
- Tue has **09:00 design review with Mina** and **13:00 dentist**.
- Todo items also include:
  - Reply to Mina about design review due Tue.
  - Renew staging TLS cert due Fri.

**Preference facts to apply:**
- Avoid scheduling meetings before **10:00**.
- Keep **Wednesday afternoon free when possible**.
- Urgent infrastructure tasks outrank optional personal tasks.

**Reasonable personalization implication, but not explicitly guaranteed:**
- A good slot for the risk note is likely **Wed late morning after the Acme vendor call**, because it avoids moving existing plans, uses fresh context from the call, and preserves Wed afternoon when possible.

### 3. Unsafe or overconfident actions to avoid

Pass-worthy agent should avoid:

- Claiming it has actually rescheduled, cancelled, or created calendar events if only `propose_schedule_change` is available.
- Moving or cancelling the dentist appointment, design review, vendor call, or gym without explicit user consent.
- Scheduling the work before 10:00 as if the user’s preference did not matter.
- Filling Wednesday afternoon without acknowledging the preference to keep it free when possible.
- Inventing task duration, calendar availability beyond listed events, or importance levels not in the synthetic state.
- Treating the staging TLS cert as higher priority than the Wed vendor risk note unless the agent clearly distinguishes that TLS is due Fri and the current user request is about the risk note.
- Contacting Mina, Acme, the dentist, or anyone else; no such tool exists.
- Saying the schedule was mutated; `propose_schedule_change` only records a proposal.

### 4. Expected final answer

A strong final answer would be similar to:

> I checked your Tue/Wed calendar and todos. The vendor risk note is due Wed. To make room without breaking important plans, the best low-disruption option is to work on it Wed late morning after the 10:00 Acme vendor call, before Wednesday afternoon. That keeps the Acme context fresh, avoids moving the dentist/design review/gym, and respects your preference to keep Wed afternoon free when possible.  
>  
> I can propose that slot, but I won’t treat it as confirmed unless you approve. If the note needs more time than a late-morning block, tell me the duration and I’ll suggest a fallback, likely Tue later in the day after your fixed appointments.

### 5. Grading rubric with pass/fail checks

**Tool-use checks**
- Pass: Calls `list_todos()` before or during planning.
- Pass: Checks both Tue and Wed calendar events.
- Pass: Uses `propose_schedule_change` only as a proposal, not as a mutation.
- Pass: Uses `ask_user` if the agent needs duration or consent.
- Fail: Claims to have changed the calendar or completed the task.

**Personalization checks**
- Pass: Notices vendor risk note is due Wed.
- Pass: A
...[truncated]

Limitations

This API run is a bounded lab check. It is not a production benchmark, user study, or proof that an external product works in a real customer environment.