Skip to main content
Glama

AMZ Vault

by com.amz-vault
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Workforce: Report

workforce_report

Submit the results of a workforce packet. Required: task_id (from the packet) and summary (plain-language account of what was done and found). Strongly recommended: headline - ONE sentence (max 200 chars) the owner reads on their Today page: what you found or did, no scope preamble. Optional: findings (structured detail), proposal_ids (anything staged during the packet — these route to the dashboard approval queue), messages (notes to other departments: {to_dept, to_role?, type, severity, body, scope}; to_role = a seat's role key when the note is for one seat, else it rides in the department's next packet).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
summaryYesShort plain-language account of the work.
task_idYesThe packet's task_id.
findingsNoStructured detail backing the summary.
headlineNoOne owner-facing sentence (max 200 chars): the finding or the action, e.g. "Negated 14 zero-order terms; $118/mo of waste stops." No scope or window preamble.
messagesNoCross-department notes: {to_dept, to_role?, type, severity, body, scope}. to_role (a role key from the packet or workforce_status) delivers to that seat only.
proposal_idsNoStaged-change ids created in this packet.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / messages / description
      Previous value: -"Cross-department notes: {to_dept, type, severity, body, scope}."New value: +"Cross-department notes: {to_dept, to_role?, type, severity, body, scope}. to_role (a role key from the packet or workforce_status) delivers to that seat only."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / headline
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "One owner-facing sentence (max 200 chars): the finding or the action, e.g. \"Negated 14 zero-order terms; $118/mo of waste stops.\" No scope or window preamble.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: proposal_ids 'route to the dashboard approval queue,' and messages are described with routing rules ('to_role = a seat's role key when the note is for one seat, else it rides in the department's next packet'). This is exactly the side-effect/routing disclosure the annotations cannot carry.

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 with the core action ('Submit the results of a workforce packet'), then field semantics in a single dense passage. Almost every clause carries information (tiers, char limits, routing), though the run-on style makes it slightly heavy to scan.

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 6-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers all fields, their importance tiers, and their side effects (approval queue, cross-department delivery). It does not describe the response or failure/permission behavior, but the annotation-supplied non-destructive profile plus full parameter coverage leaves little else an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description earns above-baseline credit by adding semantics the schema does not: tiering fields into required/recommended/optional, defining headline as owner-facing with a 200-char limit and 'no scope preamble,' and explaining the downstream routing of proposal_ids and message recipients.

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+resource: 'Submit the results of a workforce packet.' An agent can distinguish it from workforce_check_in and workforce_status via the packet-completion framing. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The description communicates the invocation tiers (Required / Strongly recommended / Optional) and what each field does, which implicitly signals this is the packet-conclusion step. However it never states when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., when to check in or query status first, or when to stage via stage_* tools instead), so usage is only implied.

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

All AMZ Vault 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