bifrost-eval
MCP pipeline evaluation toolkit — grade AI agent workflows on accuracy, cost, and reliability.
Why
Most LLM evaluation tooling grades a single prompt against a single response. Multi-agent pipelines aren't single prompts — they're orchestrations. A "correct" answer reached by the wrong tool in the wrong order is still a regression. A correct answer that took 30 seconds and cost $0.40 isn't shippable. A correct answer 80% of the time isn't a product.
bifrost-eval grades the whole workflow as a unit. Did it get the right answer, with the right tools, in the right order, fast enough, cheap enough? It produces a single graded report so a change to the pipeline either improves the score or it doesn't.
Architecture
scenarios ─▶ EvalRunner ─▶ PipelineExecutor (your code) ─▶ ExecutionTrace
│ │
│ ┌────────────────────────────┘
▼ ▼
Metrics outcomes
┌──────────────┐
│ Accuracy │
│ ToolCorrect. │ ─▶ weighted score ─▶ threshold/weighted grade
│ Latency │
│ Cost │
└──────────────┘
What It Does
bifrost-eval evaluates multi-agent MCP pipelines as complete workflows, not just individual prompts. It answers:
- Did the pipeline get the right answer? (accuracy scoring)
- Did agents use the right tools in the right order? (tool correctness via Longest-Common-Subsequence)
- How fast was it? (latency breakdown per agent/tool, p50/p95/p99 percentiles)
- How much did it cost? (cost attribution per agent/tool)
- How do different configurations compare? (A/B comparison — highest mean score wins)
Install
pip install bifrost-eval
With agent-mcp-framework integration:
pip install bifrost-eval[amf]
Quick Start
import asyncio
from bifrost_eval import (
AccuracyMetric,
CostEfficiencyMetric,
EvalRunner,
EvalSuite,
LatencyMetric,
Scenario,
ToolCorrectnessMetric,
)
# Define test scenarios
suite = EvalSuite(
name="my-agent-eval",
scenarios=[
Scenario(
name="basic-query",
input_data={"query": "What is 2+2?"},
expected_output=4,
expected_tool_calls=["calculator"],
),
],
)
# Implement PipelineExecutor protocol for your agent
class MyExecutor:
async def execute(self, scenario):
from bifrost_eval import ExecutionTrace
# Run your agent pipeline here
return ExecutionTrace(output=4, success=True)
# Run evaluation
runner = EvalRunner(
executor=MyExecutor(),
metrics=[
AccuracyMetric(weight=2.0),
ToolCorrectnessMetric(weight=1.0),
LatencyMetric(target_ms=5000),
CostEfficiencyMetric(budget_usd=0.10),
],
)
result = asyncio.run(runner.run_suite(suite))
print(f"Pass rate: {result.pass_rate:.0%}")
print(f"Grade: {result.grade.value}")
print(f"Total cost: ${result.total_cost.total_usd:.4f}")
A/B Comparison
from bifrost_eval.adapters.comparison import ComparisonRunner
comparator = ComparisonRunner(metrics=[AccuracyMetric(), CostEfficiencyMetric()])
result = await comparator.compare(
suite,
{"config-a": executor_a, "config-b": executor_b},
)
print(f"Winner: {result.winner}")
agent-mcp-framework Integration
from agent_mcp_framework import SequentialPipeline
from bifrost_eval.adapters.amf_adapter import AMFAdapter
pipeline = SequentialPipeline("my-pipeline", agents=[...])
adapter = AMFAdapter(pipeline)
runner = EvalRunner(executor=adapter, metrics=[...])
CLI
# Validate a suite file
bifrost-eval validate suite.json
# Show version
bifrost-eval --version
Metrics
| Metric | What It Measures | Default Weight |
|---|---|---|
AccuracyMetric |
Output correctness | 1.0 |
ToolCorrectnessMetric |
Right tools, right order | 1.0 |
LatencyMetric |
Speed vs target | 1.0 |
CostEfficiencyMetric |
Cost vs budget | 1.0 |
When to use this (and when not to)
Use bifrost-eval when… |
Reach for something else when… |
|---|---|
| You have a multi-agent or multi-tool pipeline you need to grade as a single workflow | You only need to grade single-prompt single-response interactions (use lm-eval-harness or task-specific benchmarks) |
| You want statistical A/B comparisons between pipeline configurations | You want a managed eval-as-a-service with a UI (use LangSmith, Weights & Biases) |
| You want a small library you can drop into a Python codebase | You want a no-code eval product |
| You want strict type-checking and property-based-tested metric implementations | You want a thousand pre-built benchmarks out of the box |
Composes with
bifrost-rag— RAG pipeline + retrieval-quality metrics (Precision@K, Recall@K, F1, MRR). Use together to grade RAG-retrieval-then-agent workflows end-to-end.bifrost-monitor— runtime observability for AI agents. Use together to evaluate offline + observe online.agent-mcp-framework— multi-agent MCP pipeline framework.bifrost-evalships a first-class adapter (bifrost_eval.adapters.amf_adapter).
Engineering bar
- pyright strict type checking (zero ignores in metric implementations)
- 80% test coverage gate enforced in CI
- Hypothesis property-based fuzzing on metrics — score outputs bounded in
[0.0, 1.0]over arbitrary inputs - Minimal runtime dependencies:
pydanticonly - MIT licensed
License
MIT
Metadata
Release files for bifrost-eval 0.2.0
For a detailed explanation of source distributions (sdists) and built distributions (wheels), please see the package formats documentation.
Source distribution (sdist)
| File | Size | Uploaded | Provenance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| bifrost_eval-0.2.0.tar.gz | 21.3 kB | Without provenance | Details |
Built distribution (wheel)
| File | Interpreter | ABI | Platform | Reset |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| bifrost_eval-0.2.0-py3-none-any.whl | Python 3 | none | any | Details |
Total release size: 38.3 kB
Release files / bifrost_eval-0.2.0.tar.gz
| Download URL | bifrost_eval-0.2.0.tar.gz |
|---|---|
| Size | 21.3 kB |
| Tags | Source |
|
SHA-256 checksum How to use checksums |
820d22f3c0d02a4a8781bf3586f1cb615fd8980b14828a3c288a8fca2bba8f89
|
|
BLAKE2b-256 checksum How to use checksums |
88159e4f2094d1a6074ea239d50bbe32c239f376a7aad73e0fcad03a2224b3a5
|
| Upload date | |
|
Uploaded using Trusted Publishing? What is trusted publishing? |
No |
| Uploaded via |
twine/6.2.0 CPython/3.13.7
|
Release files / bifrost_eval-0.2.0-py3-none-any.whl
| Download URL | bifrost_eval-0.2.0-py3-none-any.whl |
|---|---|
| Size | 17.0 kB |
| Tags | Python 3 |
|
SHA-256 checksum How to use checksums |
4ccd2853c3d72fa70d57e0694ee423b2479801322f923452a3acd951a775f27b
|
|
BLAKE2b-256 checksum How to use checksums |
c241797cc8a50f483c4d8f3fed4a7bc80706b465bb7cbb0e5bb195fb89023358
|
| Upload date | |
|
Uploaded using Trusted Publishing? What is trusted publishing? |
No |
| Uploaded via |
twine/6.2.0 CPython/3.13.7
|
Security for bifrost-eval 0.2.0
Provenance
Provenance describes where a file came from. On PyPI, provenance is shared via attestations, which provide a verifiable record of the build or publishing details. View details, limitations and caveats.
No provenance found
None of the files in this release were uploaded with provenance metadata.
A note on package security
PyPI is a repository for distributing packages, not a service for auditing them. While third-party security researchers and our staff do their best to detect and remove malicious packages, PyPI cannot guarantee the quality, security or suitability of any given package.
To learn more about protecting yourself from malicious actors, visit our package security documentation.