Skip to main content
Glama

ZeroWidth

by ai.zerowidth
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Propose what a workflow's steps take

compass_step_measures_propose

Propose estimates from what someone said, as ranges — people know "20 minutes to an hour", not "37 minutes"; when they give one number, use it for both ends. Each item is either a measure or a gate on a step (nodeId from compass_workflow_steps):

  • measure.metric working: hands-on minutes per run (low/high).

  • measure.metric waiting: minutes the work sits idle before or inside the step — ask about this separately; it's usually most of the waste.

  • measure.metric hardCost: money that isn't anyone's time (amount, currency, per run or month).

  • measure.metric frequency with nodeId null: how often the workflow runs (low/high per day, week, month, or year); with variantId, how often that variant runs.

  • gate: approval, handoff, rekey (typing the same data into another system), or rework, with returnRate (0–1) when they know how often it sends work back. Pass subjectPageId (a ROLE or PERSON) when the time is one person's or role's — it prices the time through that role's rate. Always say who said it. Proposals count once someone accepts them in Compass.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes
pageIdYesThe WORKFLOW page id.
sourceIdNoThe interview, email thread, Prism report or page id, for those kinds.
workspaceNoWorkspace slug. Personal tokens with no default workspace MUST pass this; tokens with a default can override per call. Ignored for workspace API keys.
sourceKindNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / sourceId / description
      Previous value: -"The interview or page id, for those kinds."New value: +"The interview, email thread, Prism report or page id, for those kinds."
    • changedInput schema / properties / sourceKind / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "interview",
-  "page",
-  "user"
-]New value: +[
+  "interview",
+  "page",
+  "user",
+  "email_thread",
+  "prism_report"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations establish this is a write (readOnlyHint=false) that is non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds meaningful lifecycle context beyond that: proposals 'count once someone accepts them in Compass', i.e. they are staged rather than committed. It doesn't detail auth requirements, limits on item count beyond the schema, or error behavior, but the acceptance-gate disclosure is valuable extra context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded intent followed by dense, example-driven bullets that each carry new information (unit, currency, per period, returnRate range). It is long, but the length tracks real complexity of the item union; little is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter, nested-item, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the semantics that matter most for correct invocation and even explains the acceptance lifecycle. Gaps remain on temporal fields (validFrom/validTo) and source attribution params, which prevents a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 60%, and the description compensates well: it defines the item union semantics (working, waiting, hardCost, frequency), the frequency-with-null-nodeId vs variantId distinction, and explains subjectPageId's pricing-through-role behavior, which the schema leaves undocumented. validFrom/validTo and sourceId/sourceKind get no extra explanation, keeping it from a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — proposing estimates (measures/gates) for a workflow's steps — and anchors it to `compass_workflow_steps` for nodeId, so an agent knows the object graph. It does not explicitly differentiate from near siblings like compass_step_claims_propose or compass_step_suggestions_build, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives real usage context: propose ranges (not point estimates), 'ask about waiting separately', pass subjectPageId when the time belongs to one role/person, and 'Always say who said it.' What's missing is explicit when-not or alternative-tool routing against sibling propose/build tools, so it lands at 4.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ZeroWidth toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources