Skip to main content
Glama

calculate_pace_layer_drag

Read-onlyIdempotent

Quantify the annual EUR cost of an AI ambition outrunning the operating model: queues, hand-offs and slow decisions that prevent the organisation capturing the value already assumed in the case. CALL THIS when the user needs the cost of waiting for the organisation to change, or when a Fix plan needs a cost-of-waiting figure. Do not use it to score an AI initiative, estimate the implementation cost, or calculate a process saving: use score_initiative for the investment verdict, diagnose_process for a running process, and recommend_improvements for the change plan. revenue_eur sets the absolute EUR range; ai_tier and readiness together set the drag rate and pace_gap, so gen3 in a siloed organisation costs more than gen1 in an agile one. industry is accepted for a consistent interface and defaults to universal, but does not change this calculation yet. Returns a low/high EUR range, drag rate, pace-gap severity, drivers and source. Pure deterministic calculation — no network, auth, or side effects.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ai_tierYesAmbition of the AI operating model: gen1 = automation/RPA, gen2 = GenAI, gen3 = agentic. Paired with readiness to set pace_gap severity — gen3 on any readiness below agile, or gen2 on siloed, is severe; a higher tier against a slower operating model widens the gap and raises the drag.
industryNoOptional; defaults to universal if omitted. Reserved for future vertical drag-rate adjustments — does not change the result today. Call list_taxonomy for accepted values.
readinessYesOrganisational readiness, honest self-assessment: agile = cross-functional, fast decisions; traditional = functional hierarchy; siloed = rigid, hand-off heavy. Agile readiness yields minimal drag at any tier; the mismatch between a fast AI tier and a slower operating model is what generates the Organisational Drag Cost.
revenue_eurYesApproximate annual revenue in EUR (must be ≥ 0). The result scales with this: annual_drag_eur is returned as an absolute range and as drag_rate, a fraction of this revenue (e.g. 0.02 = 2%).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesCitation for the drag-rate model applied.
driversYesNamed factors contributing to the drag.
pace_gapYesSeverity of the tier↔readiness mismatch.
drag_rateYesDrag as a fraction of revenue (e.g. 0.02 = 2%), low/high.
bvf_versionYesAI BVF protocol version used.
annual_drag_eurYesEstimated annual Organisational Drag Cost in EUR, low/high.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description discloses deterministic calculation with no side effects, no network or auth, consistent with annotations. Adds context about return format and pure calculation nature.

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?

Comprehensive single paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, but could benefit from structural breaks for readability. No wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, parameter behavior, return values, and safety. Output schema exists but description adds essential context about deterministic nature and no side effects.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Adds meaning beyond schema by explaining how parameters interact (e.g., gen3+silod costs more), scaling with revenue, and future placeholder for industry.

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?

Description clearly states the tool quantifies annual EUR cost of AI ambition outrunning operating model, explicitly distinguishing from siblings like score_initiative, diagnose_process, and recommend_improvements.

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 states when to call ('cost of waiting for the organisation to change'), when not to use, and provides alternative tools for other needs.

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.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a clear trigger and purpose, with descriptions explicitly cross-referencing when to use which. However, assess_ai_initiative, score_initiative, and score_portfolio all produce verdicts and could be confused without carefully reading the canonical-vs-conversational distinction.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 13 tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: assemble, assess, calculate, diagnose, get, infer, list, map, recommend, score, sequence, validate. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is well within the ideal range for a domain of this complexity. Each tool covers a distinct stage of the AI investment workflow—taxonomy, assessment, scoring, portfolio, sequencing, diagnostics—without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: mapping input language, assembling and validating portfolio documents, assessing and scoring initiatives, diagnosing processes, measuring readiness, calculating pace-layer drag, recommending improvements, and sequencing portfolios. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated domain.