Get labor actions affecting supply chains extracted from news intelligence. Covers strikes, lockouts, slowdowns, contract negotiations, and protests. Each event includes union, employer, location, worker count, affected ports, status, and impact description. Used by logistics planners and procurement teams to assess labor disruption risk at ports and manufacturing facilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the source (news intelligence), event types, and data fields, making the behavior predictable for a read-only getter. It does not mention pagination/freshness, but for a no-parameter call this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action and scope. Every clause adds value—source, coverage, data schema, and use case—without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the returned event structure (union, employer, location, etc.), covers relevant labor action types, and explains the intended usage context, making it self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no parameter-specific semantics but none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and specific resource ('labor actions affecting supply chains'), listing covered event types. It distinguishes itself from siblings by narrowing to labor-related disruptions with concrete fields.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear context for use ('assess labor disruption risk at ports and manufacturing facilities') and target users. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous relative to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a specific and distinct supply chain intelligence need, such as monitoring port congestion, tracking commodity prices, or analyzing trade policy. While there are multiple tools related to signals and ports, each has a clearly defined purpose (e.g., real-time monitoring vs. trend analysis vs. predictive signals), reducing ambiguity.
Most tools use the 'get_' prefix (e.g., get_port_congestion_trends, get_border_delays), but several tools lack it, such as commodity_price_monitor, port_congestion_monitor, and supply_chain_risk_assessment. This mix of 'get_' and non-'get_' naming creates inconsistency. Additionally, some names are noun-heavy (risk_pillar_breakdown) while others are verb-noun (commodity_price_monitor).
At 31 tools, the server is on the higher end of acceptable scope for a comprehensive supply chain intelligence platform. However, some redundancy exists (e.g., multiple signal and port tools), and the count may overwhelm agents without clear prioritization. It is slightly above the ideal range for coherence.
The tool set covers the major aspects of external supply chain risk: commodities, transportation (ports, borders, air, rail, chokepoints), manufacturing, macroeconomic indicators, trade policy, natural disasters, and labor actions. It also includes analytical tools like trend analysis and predictive signals, leaving no obvious gaps for its stated purpose of monitoring global supply chain disruptions.