Server data from the Official MCP Registry
ROBINS-I V2 (not V1): risk of bias in one result of a non-randomized cohort study
About
ROBINS-I V2 (not V1): risk of bias in one result of a non-randomized cohort study
Security Report
Valid MCP server (1 strong, 3 medium validity signals). No known CVEs in dependencies. Imported from the Official MCP Registry. 1 finding(s) downgraded by scanner intelligence.
3 files analyzed · 1 issue found
Security scores are indicators to help you make informed decisions, not guarantees. Always review permissions before connecting any MCP server.
Permissions Required
This plugin requests these system permissions. Most are normal for its category.
How to Install
Add this to your MCP configuration file:
{
"mcpServers": {
"com-blackswancausallabs-robins-i-mcp": {
"args": [
"robins-i-mcp"
],
"command": "uvx"
}
}
}Documentation
View on GitHubFrom the project's GitHub README.
robins-i-mcp
An MCP server implementing ROBINS-I V2 (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies – of Interventions, follow-up/cohort variant) as a deterministic, provenanced assessment engine.
Sibling to target-mcp, which scores how
completely a target-trial-emulation study reports what the TARGET guideline
requires. This one assesses risk of bias in one specific result. The two are
complementary on the same paper.
The source is a draft. riskofbias.info presents the 20 November 2025 release of ROBINS-I V2 as still a draft, subject to change. Every report stamps that in its provenance line. See
NOTICEandTRANSCRIPTION-NOTES.md.Follow-up cohort studies. "Follow-up" and "cohort" name one structural property — a defined time zero, individuals followed forward under the contrasted strategies — so read the property, not a design label. Target trial emulations are the central use case and are cohort studies in exactly this sense; both worked examples below are TTEs. Designs with no follow-up structure are out. No variant for other designs is published yet. Note that "Variant A / Variant B" inside the tool means the two forms of Domain 1 selected by C4 — not a study design.
What makes it different from asking a model
The model's contribution is bounded at answering signalling questions from the text. It cannot compute a judgement and it cannot invent evidence.
1 parse_document PDF + supplement → SectionMap deterministic
2 cue detection where to look, per domain deterministic
3 answer signalling questions quotes copied from the bundle MODEL
4 evidence binding quotes → offsets, or REJECT deterministic
5 algorithms answers → domain → overall deterministic
6 report + render stamped artifact deterministic
7 human ratification P1, reviewer-prior answers, overrides
Three rules are enforced at submission, and they are the point of the server:
- Quotes resolve or die. Every quote is matched to character offsets in the ingested bundle through a three-pass ladder (exact → hyphen-relaxed → references-stripped), and the winning pass is recorded so a loose match is never silently equated with an exact one. An unresolvable quote is rejected with the nearest actual text.
- Absence is searched, not asserted. A
manuscript_absentanswer names a cue; the server runs the search and attaches the record — terms, sections, hit count. A prose claim that you looked is refused. - Judgements are computed. No tool accepts a domain judgement as input. The six domain algorithms and the overall algorithm are explicit edge graphs traced from the published flowcharts. A human may override, with a recorded justification, and the report shows both values.
Two gates
P1 blocks domain 1. Question 1.1 asks whether all important confounding
factors were controlled, and "important" is defined by the reviewer's
prespecified list — not by the paper's covariate table. The server refuses to
score domain 1 without set_prespecified_confounders rather than silently
substituting one for the other. A list you propose is a candidate: it enters the
ratification queue until a human accepts it.
C4 selects domain 1's question set. Whether the analysis accounts for
protocol deviations picks variant A (intention-to-treat, baseline confounding
only) or variant B (per-protocol, baseline and time-varying confounding), so
specify_result requires it up front with no default. Judge it on what the
analysis does, not on the label the authors give their estimand — on the
reference paper, the protocol table says "per-protocol effect" and the analysis
is intention-to-treat.
Install
pip install robins-i-mcp
Then register it with your MCP client:
{ "mcpServers": { "robins-i": { "command": "robins-i-mcp" } } }
Or run it with no install at all:
uvx robins-i-mcp
Also on the MCP registry as
com.blackswancausallabs/robins-i-mcp.
Develop
python3 -m venv .venv && .venv/bin/python -m pip install -e ".[dev]"
.venv/bin/python -m pytest tests/ -q # 205 passed
.venv/bin/robins-i-mcp # stdio MCP server
Tools
| Group | Tool | |
|---|---|---|
| Spec | get_spec | optional introspection; detail='compact'|'full' |
| Ingest | parse_document | PDF/docx/text + supplements → hash + cue survey |
parse_pmcid | Europe PMC retrieval | |
| Setup | set_prespecified_confounders | P1, review-scoped, blocks domain 1 |
specify_result | A1–A3, B1–B3, C1–C3, D1, and C4 | |
| Assess | assess_result | domain=0 overview, domain=1..6 scaffold |
submit_answers | per domain; domain=0 finalizes and renders | |
| Render | render_report | re-render of the stamped artifact |
| Review | export_robvis | many runs' records → one robvis CSV |
Scaffolds are per domain, never one flat rubric: most signalling questions are unreachable on any given path, and which of domain 1's two sets exists at all depends on C4.
Pass the supplement. The target-trial specification that settles C1–C4, and
the analysis detail domains 1 and 4 turn on, routinely live only in the
appendix. Without it, those questions read NI when the answer was merely in a
file nobody ingested.
Many studies: the record
A review of N studies is N runs. Each assessment costs a session, and the server keeps no state between them. So each run emits a small portable record — that is the deliverable that crosses the boundary:
session 1..N assess one result -> save submit_answers(domain=0)['record']
later export_robvis(records=[...]) -> one figure-ready CSV
A record is ~4 KB of flat JSON and depends on nothing in this codebase, so any later agent can consume it. It carries its own provenance — document hash, algorithm fingerprint, spec version, ratification state — so every row in the resulting figure traces back to a document, and the export can warn when a set mixes algorithm transcriptions.
export_robvis is not a column dump. robvis's ROBINS-I template is V1:
seven domains, and V1 orders selection of participants before classification
of interventions, which V2 swaps. The default layout places each V2 judgement in
its correct V1 slot; a positional dump would parse, plot, and lie. Read the
returned losses before publishing — robvis reduces every cell to its first
initial over a five-fill palette, so the qualified low collapses to Low there
whatever string is written.
See examples/review_from_records.py.
Worked examples
.venv/bin/python examples/dickerman_2022.py out.html # library level
.venv/bin/python examples/jabagi_2026_server_run.py # server level
.venv/bin/python examples/review_from_records.py # across runs
- Dickerman et al., NEJM 2022 — BNT162b2 vs mRNA-1273 in US veterans. Comes out low, except for concerns about uncontrolled confounding. 24 of 41 questions never reached.
- Jabagi et al., Lancet Reg Health Eur 2026 — maternal RSVpreF vs infant RSV hospitalisation. Comes out serious, and the route is worth reading: domain 1 fails at 1.3 rather than 1.1, because gestational age at birth and birth weight are matched on despite being realised after the intervention.
The papers themselves are not in this repository — they are published
articles and not ours to redistribute. Put your own copies in papers/, or
point ROBINS_MCP_PAPERS at the directory holding them; the examples name the
files they need and fail with that message if they are absent.
Documentation
docs/STATUS.md— current state and handoff. Read this first.docs/DECISIONS.md— why things are the way they are, newest first.docs/SESSION-NOTES-*.md— per-session narrative.TRANSCRIPTION-NOTES.md— how the algorithms were obtained from raster flowcharts, the errata found in the published document, and what still needs external verification.
Licence
Apache-2.0 (LICENSE). The ROBINS-I V2 tool it implements is CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
and no part of it is reproduced here — see NOTICE for why that matters and
what the actual constraint is.
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to review this server!
More Developer Tools MCP Servers
Git
Freeby Modelcontextprotocol · Developer Tools
Read, search, and manipulate Git repositories programmatically
Toleno
Freeby Toleno · Developer Tools
Toleno Network MCP Server — Manage your Toleno mining account with Claude AI using natural language.
mcp-creator-python
Freeby mcp-marketplace · Developer Tools
Create, build, and publish Python MCP servers to PyPI — conversationally.
MarkItDown
Freeby Microsoft · Content & Media
Convert files (PDF, Word, Excel, images, audio) to Markdown for LLM consumption
MCP Marketplace
Freeby mcp-marketplace · Developer Tools
Search and install MCP servers from inside your AI client.
FinAgent
Freeby mcp-marketplace · Finance
Free stock data and market news for any MCP-compatible AI assistant.
