The importance of MCP evaluations in agentic AI

The race is on to build agents that don’t just answer questions, but take real actions on a user’s behalf. As those agents move into real workflows, the problem is no longer whether they can produce the right answer, but if they behave correctly end to end.

As agents move into production, traditional model evaluations become insufficiently granular. While they can flag a failure, they often fail to capture the complex co-integration of tools or the material consequences of an agent’s actions within a real-world system. At Toloka, we developed our own MCP evaluation framework to evaluate agentic behavior inside environments that resemble real user-facing systems.

Our MCP evaluations are designed for teams building agents that operate inside real systems, where behavior across a full workflow matters more than producing a plausible response. We close this gap by mapping how agents behave inside realistic, tool-driven environments and revealing which capabilities are missing. Unlike traditional benchmarks that act as a one-time step gate, MCP evaluations are designed to be a continuous feedback loop.

By running these evaluations repeatedly—often in weekly sprints during training or fine-tuning—teams can measure genuine improvement over time and catch regressions early. Every sprint produces a detailed report combining automated metrics with human-annotated failure analysis, turning evaluation into a practical input for model improvement rather than a passive measurement exercise.

Why traditional evals fall short for agents

To understand why traditional evals fall short, we must distinguish between Information retrieval and task orchestration.

Historically, customer service chatbots were built for information retrieval: they surfaced the right snippet from policies, FAQs, or a knowledge base and turned it into a relevant yet generic response. Agents, by contrast, are expected to do what a human assistant would do—execute an end-to-end, user-specific workflow by taking actions across tools and systems. This shift calls for a new evaluation paradigm. 

In contrast with traditional benchmarks, MCP Evaluations focus on the end-to-end trajectory. Success is no longer about a 'correct answer'; it is about whether the agent followed the correct sequence of tool calls to complete a functional goal.

While many agentic benchmarks provide a simple pass/fail reward, Toloka’s approach adds a critical diagnostic layer. By combining automated rewards with expert human annotation, we provide a structured taxonomy of failures. This allows teams to see not just that an agent failed, but exactly where the breakdown occurred—whether it was a tool-execution fault, a data-grounding error, or a reasoning gap. This is the difference between a passive score and an actionable roadmap for model improvement.

What MCP evals measure instead

Toloka’s MCP evaluations are trajectory-focused and agentic. They run models inside proprietary environments that mirror real operational systems. Each environment includes the types of tools, data structures and constraints an agent encounters in production. The agent is tasked with completing a goal by interacting with this ecosystem step-by-step.

Our hybrid evaluation approach leverages both automatic rewards and expert human annotation  to focus on the full trajectory, rather than just the final output. We measure: 

• Did the agent choose the right tool at the right time?

• Did it construct valid tool arguments?

• Did it interpret the returned data correctly?

• Did it respect policy boundaries?

• Did its reasoning remain consistent over multiple steps?

To ensure statistical reliability, a standard evaluation sprint typically covers 300 to 500 proprietary data points across multiple environments, such as manufacturing or marketplace assistants. Every test case is enriched with metadata (domain, specific policy, user intent) and backed by multirun statistics to establish a clear failure rate.

[insert Image showing a dashboard with sample failure rates] 

For teams looking for specialized benchmarks, we also offer off-the-shelf environments like our TAU-inspired manufacturing dataset. While this specific environment consists of 50 datapoints, it functions as a deep dive into how an agent handles the rigid policies and intricate workflows of an industrial system.

Because these environments are proprietary and not found in public training data, the results reflect genuine capability shifts. This makes MCP evaluations a practical tool for guiding training rather than just reporting a score.

Understanding why agents fail

What sets Toloka’s approach to MCP evaluations apart is the way failures are examined. Each run uses automated signals with human review of the full agent trajectory, so when something goes wrong it’s possible to see exactly how and where it happened. 

Human annotators classify failures using a structured taxonomy, which covers 12 distinct error types spanning three core categories: 

• Tool execution faults (wrong tool selection, invalid arguments, improper sequencing)

• Data grounding issues (misreading returned data, mixing entities, missing required fields)

• Reasoning failures (lost constraints across multi-step plans, incorrect policy application, domain knowledge gaps). 

Instead of a single pass or fail score, teams can see where the breakdown happened and whether the agent chose the wrong tool, misinterpreted the data it retrieved, or lost track of constraints across multiple steps.

Instead of seeing the performance fall without context, they start to see consistent patterns show up across runs. Some models break down when tasks require tool sequencing. Others retrieve the right information but misinterpret it once it’s returned. In some cases, the execution looks correct until a policy boundary is crossed late in the workflow.

Having this kind of visibility makes evaluation actionable by showing which capability is missing at a given point in time. It turns evaluation into a practical input for improving agent behavior rather than a passive measurement exercise.

A specific example: The manufacturing workflow 

To see the difference in practice, consider an internal manufacturing agent designed to support operations teams. A user asks the agent to check whether a delayed production order requires escalation under company policy.

In a traditional  benchmark, a model might simply generate a generic explanation of the escalation policy based on a PDF. In an MCP evaluation, the agent must actually perform the end-to-end workflow:

1. Retrieve Context: Call a tool to open the relevant Zendesk ticket.

2. Verify Data: Call tools to retrieve the exact order details, user tier, and current status.

3. Consult Policy: Query the internal knowledge base for escalation thresholds and specific policy conditions.

4. Execute Action: If the thresholds are met, call the escalation tool and update the Zendesk ticket with the resolution.

When an agent fails this task, the "why" matters immensely. Model A might retrieve the wrong order (Tooling failure), while Model B identifies the delay correctly but triggers the escalation tool without verifying the policy conditions (Reasoning/Policy failure). These require completely different training fixes. Toloka’s MCP evaluations capture these nuances and label them explicitly. That is the difference between knowing an agent failed and having a technical roadmap to fix it.

Who MCP evals are for: the value of diagnostic signal

While agentic evaluations are critical for any organization deploying AI, they provide a unique strategic advantage for two specific groups:

1. Model Providers

For teams building the next generation of agents and infrastructure, MCP evaluations provide the high-resolution diagnostic signal needed for robust and detailed testing. 

• Actionable training data: Instead of a generic "fail," providers receive a breakdown of whether the model needs stronger tool calling capabilities ), better  long-context retention, or more accurate policy adherence .

• Accelerated speed to market: By identifying specific capability gaps during weekly training sprints, providers can fix regressions in days rather than months. Finding a tool-sequencing bug during development is significantly more cost-effective than discovering it after the model has reached production users.

• Zero contamination: Because environments are proprietary and updated continuously, providers can be certain that performance gains reflect genuine capability growth rather than "memorizing" public benchmarks.

2. Enterprises

For those deploying agents into real-world systems, the stakes are measured in material consequences.

• Pre-deployment de-risking: MCP evals surface risks—like an agent accidentally escalating a ticket without policy approval—before they impact real users or internal systems like Zendesk and ERPs.

• Cost efficiency: By understanding the "failure rate" across multiple separate runs per datapoint, teams can determine if a model is reliable enough for high-stakes tasks or if it requires more robust guardrails.

Domain-specific realism: Teams can evaluate agents in an environment that closely mirrors their corporate use case—using the same tools, policies, and workflows the agent will face in production.