Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Spark Pack

by io.github.Nero-Engine
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check a filled certificate

check_certificate
Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks a filled EIC, Minor Works certificate or EICR (shape from get_certificate_schema) and returns ready_to_transfer, every missing required field by path, errors (readings that fail: insulation resistance under 1 megohm at 500 V, measured Zs above the maximum for the breaker, RCD trip times too slow, wrong polarity, an EICR marked satisfactory with a C1 or C2) and warnings (Zs above 80% of maximum, mismatched ring readings, low insulation resistance). Contractor fields left blank are filled from trade. Returns the (prefilled) data back.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "certificate": "<certificate>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "check_certificate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe certificate object, shaped like the JSON Schema from get_certificate_schema.
tradeNoOptional. The electrician's own business details (Nero Trade Profile v1). Used to prefill certificate contractor fields and to give a stable nero_trade_ref. Not stored by Spark Pack.
certificateYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say read-only, idempotent, non-destructive; the description goes far beyond by publishing the actual validation rules (insulation resistance under 1 megohm at 500 V, Zs above breaker maximum, slow RCD trip times, wrong polarity, satisfactory EICR with C1/C2) and the warning thresholds. It also discloses the side effect that blank contractor fields are prefilled from `trade` and that the (prefilled) data is returned, which the annotations alone would not reveal.

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 verb, the accepted types, and the primary return key, and every clause carries real information. The long inline parenthetical enumerating error and warning conditions is dense and would parse better as a short list, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

With no output schema and nested input objects, the description carries the burden well: it names the top-level return keys, spells out error versus warning semantics, and explains the trade-prefill behavior. It leaves open the exact format of the 'missing field by path' strings and the behavior when `certificate` disagrees with the `data` shape.

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?

At 67% schema coverage, the schema explains most fields; the description adds genuine meaning by tying `trade` to contractor-field prefill behavior and by tying `certificate` to the three supported form types. It does not add syntax detail for the nested `data` object axes beyond pointing at get_certificate_schema, but that pointer is itself useful.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('a filled EIC, Minor Works certificate or EICR'), enumerates the accepted certificate types, and explicitly routes to get_certificate_schema for the data shape. The return contract (`ready_to_transfer`, missing fields, errors, warnings) makes the purpose distinguishable from any generic validation sibling.

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?

The context is clear: this is the post-fill validation step for a certificate whose shape came from get_certificate_schema, and `ready_to_transfer` implies a gating decision before transfer. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or contrast with the other check_* siblings, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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

All Spark Pack 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