Skip to main content
Glama

cupix-compass

by io.github.andrew-ji-cupix

Browse all the CupixWorks projects you have access to.

list-my-projects
Read-only

List construction projects the user can access within a team.

Use this tool ONLY when the user wants to switch project or has no saved current project. If check-current-project returns a saved facility_key, do NOT call this tool — call the analysis tool directly with no arguments.

Required workflow when this tool IS appropriate:

  1. Present the returned projects to the user.

  2. Wait for the user to select one.

  3. Call set-focus-project with team_domain and facility_key to persist the selection so future sessions skip this step.

  4. Then invoke analysis tools.

Args: team_domain: Team domain. Optional; if omitted, falls back to the saved current project, otherwise returns the team list so the caller can pick a team first. user_intent: REQUIRED. Pass the user's original question or request verbatim. Used for analytics only, does not affect results.

Returns: str: Accessible facilities with their keys and names.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
team_domainNo
user_intentNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds important behavioral details: team_domain fallback behavior, user_intent being analytics-only, and the required multi-step workflow. It also clarifies the return type as a string of accessible facilities, which is beyond the structured fields.

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?

The description is well-structured with a bold usage rule, a clear numbered workflow, and separate Arg explanations. Every sentence adds practical value; the length is justified by the complex workflow required.

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?

The description is complete for this tool's context: it explains when to use, prerequisites, workflow steps, parameter behavior, fallback logic, and return value. The presence of an output schema reduces the need but the description still covers the essential context thoroughly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully documents both parameters. It explains team_domain is optional and what happens if omitted, and that user_intent is REQUIRED and passed verbatim for analytics only—significantly adding meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists construction projects the user can access within a team. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying when to use it ('ONLY when the user wants to switch project or has no saved current project') and by contrasting with check-current-project.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including an alternative: 'If check-current-project returns a saved facility_key, do NOT call this tool — call the analysis tool directly.' It also provides a numbered workflow for presentation, selection, and persistence via set-focus-project.

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

All cupix-compass toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools generally have distinct purposes, but there is overlap between analyze-progress-and-forecasts and ask-about-project-data for progress metrics, and between search-site-photos and ask-about-project-data for capture data. The descriptions include guidance (e.g., 'use analyze-progress for trade visibility'), but an agent may still be uncertain which tool to choose for a given query.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use a consistent lowercase hyphen-separated format with a verb prefix (e.g., list-my-projects, set-focus-project). Most follow a verb-noun structure, though ask-about-project-data and analyze-progress-and-forecasts include prepositions/conjunctions, making them slightly less uniform.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose: four analysis tools and three context-management tools. Each tool serves a clear role without unnecessary redundancy, and the count aligns well with typical MCP server conventions.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core needs of project progress analysis, natural language querying, photo search, findings comparison, and project context management. Access to detailed records is available through ask-about-project-data, so no major dead ends. Minor gaps include no dedicated tool for just listing captures or viewing project details, but these are addressable via the query tool.

Resources