Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

PreShiftIQ

by com.preshiftiq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

My assessment status

my_assessment_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

For the signed-in client (the evaluating company): whether the latest completed PreShiftIQ assessment has results, whether those results are under review, how many matched vendors were notified, how many have accepted, and how many matches are still queued for delivery. When no assessment has been submitted but one has been started, the status is in_progress, with its completion percentage and the URL to resume it. An assessment that was submitted and has no matches to show yet is submitted_pending. Status only; it lists no matches.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "my_assessment_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes
summaryYes
verticalYes
resume_urlNo
completion_pctNo
accepted_matchesYes
notified_matchesYes
pending_deliveryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / vertical / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "tms",
-  "dock-scheduling",
-  "eld",
-  "carrier-vetting",
-  "fleet-management",
-  null
-]New value: +[
+  "tms",
+  "dock-scheduling",
+  "eld",
+  "carrier-vetting",
+  "fleet-management",
+  "supply-chain-procurement",
+  "yard-management",
+  null
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedOutput schema / properties / boundary_statement
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "status",
-  "vertical",
-  "notified_matches",
-  "accepted_matches",
-  "pending_delivery",
-  "summary",
-  "boundary_statement"
-]New value: +[
+  "status",
+  "vertical",
+  "notified_matches",
+  "accepted_matches",
+  "pending_delivery",
+  "summary"
+]
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / boundary_statement
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "status",
-  "vertical",
-  "notified_matches",
-  "accepted_matches",
-  "pending_delivery",
-  "summary"
-]New value: +[
+  "status",
+  "vertical",
+  "notified_matches",
+  "accepted_matches",
+  "pending_delivery",
+  "summary",
+  "boundary_statement"
+]
  4. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / completion_pct
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / resume_url
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / status / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "no_results",
-  "under_review",
-  "results",
-  "no_account"
-]New value: +[
+  "no_results",
+  "under_review",
+  "results",
+  "no_account",
+  "in_progress",
+  "submitted_pending"
+]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / summary
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "status",
-  "vertical",
-  "notified_matches",
-  "accepted_matches",
-  "pending_delivery"
-]New value: +[
+  "status",
+  "vertical",
+  "notified_matches",
+  "accepted_matches",
+  "pending_delivery",
+  "summary"
+]
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish a safe, idempotent read, so the description's job is to add semantics — and it does, defining in_progress (with completion percentage and resume URL) and submitted_pending. It does not cover the state where no assessment exists at all, nor anything about caching or freshness of the counts.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary payload and closing with the key disambiguation. The first sentence is a long multi-clause run-on, but every clause carries distinct information.

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?

Rich annotations plus an output schema mean the description needn't document the response shape, and it wisely spends its words on status-value semantics instead. The one omission is the no-assessment-at-all case, which is a plausible null state an agent would encounter.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so parameter semantics carry a baseline of 4. The description correctly scopes everything implicitly to the signed-in client rather than inviting an id or filter argument.

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 resource (the signed-in company's latest PreShiftIQ assessment) and enumerates exactly what is reported: results presence, review state, notified/accepted/queued match counts. It explicitly separates itself from my_matches with 'Status only; it lists no matches.'

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?

Usage is clear from the framing ('For the signed-in client') and the explicit routing away from my_matches for the actual match list. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative such as my_scorecard_status or stating when-not-to-use beyond that one exclusion.

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

All PreShiftIQ 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