Skip to main content
Glama

Create system LoS target

create_system_los_target

Set the technical Level of Service target for one system and metric. One base target per system and metric, set once for the organization; a duplicate returns 409, so update the existing row instead. Each building is held to a version adjusted by its criticality: a lower-is-better target is multiplied by the tier's modifier, a higher-is-better one keeps its distance from a perfect score multiplied by it (condition 70 becomes 82 at a Critical facility, 58 at a Low one). Derived targets never leave the metric's scale. Direction is fixed by the metric and cannot be sent: asset_condition_avg is higher-is-better and uses the fixed 0-100 condition bands; fci, asset_past_useful_life_pct (both 0-100 percent) and risk_score_avg (0-25) are lower-is-better. Not money. Requires los_targets:write scope. Resolve system_id first via list_systems.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
activeNoWhether the target is scored (default true)
metricYesMetric the target tracks (required)
system_idYesSystem ID (required) - resolve first via list_systems
base_targetYesBase target on the metric's scale (required): fci, asset_condition_avg and asset_past_useful_life_pct run 0-100; risk_score_avg runs 0-25

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / system_id / pattern
      Added value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$"
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"New value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / system_id / pattern
      Removed value: -"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$"
  3. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / system_id / pattern
      Added value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$"
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the 409-on-duplicate behavior, the derived-target mechanics (criticality modifier multiplication, examples 70->82 at Critical / 58 at Low), the scale-clamping guarantee, and the required los_targets:write scope. Annotations only cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information, but the derived-target arithmetic example is dense and the paragraph is long for a four-parameter tool. Slight sprawl without being wasteful.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: authorization scope, duplicate handling, key resolution prerequisite, fixed direction, and metric semantics.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: direction is fixed by the metric and cannot be sent, which metric is higher- vs lower-is-better, the scale of each metric, and 'Not money'. It duplicates some scale info already in the schema fields, keeping it just below a 5.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Set the technical Level of Service target for one system and metric'), scoping it to a single system+metric and distinguishing it from the sibling target tools by the 'one base target per system and metric' constraint and the update-existing-row directive.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly covers when-not and the alternative: a duplicate returns 409, so update the existing row instead (routing to update_system_los_target). It also gives a prerequisite workflow step, 'Resolve system_id first via list_systems'.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources