Skip to main content
Glama

Identify Opening Blockers

identify_opening_blockers
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when checking which RetailHardHat locations have store-opening risk signals: overdue incomplete site tasks, rejected permits, or expired permits. Requires sites, tasks, and permits scopes. Do not treat results as a critical-path prediction or certification of readiness.

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": "identify_opening_blockers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteIdNoOptional RetailHardHat location UUID. Omit to inspect the organization's available records.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already covering read-only/idempotent/non-destructive properties, the description adds valuable context: required scopes (sites, tasks, permits) and a warning against misinterpreting results as critical-path prediction or certification. It does not describe return values, but an output schema exists.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, zero waste. The caveat is succinct and relevant.

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?

Given annotations, a complete output schema, and a single optional parameter, the description covers purpose, scopes, and output caveat adequately. It doesn't explain org-level behavior when siteId is omitted, but the schema covers that.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single optional siteId parameter, so the schema fully documents it. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for high coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: identifying RetailHardHat locations with store-opening risk signals (overdue tasks, rejected/expired permits). It distinguishes from generic listing tools by focusing on aggregated risk signals, but does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

It provides a clear when-to-use scenario ('checking which locations have risk signals') and a caveat about interpretation, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use other tools (e.g., list_permits vs this tool) or when not to use this tool.

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