Skip to main content
Glama

forensic_windows_analysis

Run forensic windows analysis (AACE RP 29R-03 §3.3, MIP 3.3 Observational / Dynamic / Contemporaneous As-Is) across multiple Primavera P6 XER snapshots and return the full analysis dict.

        This is the headline forensic tool — it computes per-window
        completion shifts, per-window slip registers (per-activity slip
        with critical/non-critical flag), per-window duration growth on
        critical-path activities, per-window per-party attribution
        (Owner / Contractor / Concurrent / Force Majeure / Unattributed),
        and cumulative project drift from baseline. The attribution math
        satisfies the CPP conservation check, per the AACE 29R-03
        §3.3.E.13 requirement that the summed per-period net impacts
        equal the difference between the first schedule update and the
        last schedule update used in the evaluation (per-party day
        buckets sum to project drift within ±1 day, no cascade-double-
        counting).

        Use this tool for the full multi-window forensic claim. If you
        already have a windows result and only want the per-window ×
        per-party grid view, call ``concurrent_delay_matrix`` instead.

        Args:
            schedules: list of dicts in chronological order. Minimum 2
                entries (baseline + at least one update). Each dict
                must contain ``label`` (str) and EXACTLY ONE of:
                  - ``xer_path``    — server-side filesystem path, OR
                  - ``xer_content`` — full XER text content.
                Use ``xer_content`` when calling a hosted MCP server
                from a remote client whose XER lives locally.
            project_name: optional override; auto-picked from XER if "".
            baseline_idx: which entry in ``schedules`` is the contract
                baseline (default 0 = first one).
            entitlement_milestone: optional task_code (e.g.
                "Ready for Takeover") — recorded on the result, not used
                for math.
            output_dir: optional dir for HTML dashboard / DOCX report.
                If "", a tempdir is used and dropped after — the
                dashboard / report paths in the response will point to
                the temp location (caller responsible for moving them).

        Returns:
            {
              "analysis": full dict from run_windows() with keys:
                "windows", "cumulative", "baseline_label", "data_dates",
                "attribution_summary", "mcpm_attribution", ...,
              "dashboard": path to HTML dashboard (server-side),
              "report":    path to DOCX executive report (server-side),
              "baseline_stability": {"worst_severity", "has_block", ...}
            }

            On failure: {"error": "..."} with no schedules processed.
        

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schedulesYes
output_dirNo
baseline_idxNo
project_nameNo
entitlement_milestoneNo

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It explains the tempdir behavior and caller responsibility, the failure response format ('{"error": "..."} with no schedules processed'), and the CPP conservation-check expectation of the attribution math.

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 structured with a purpose statement, usage guidance, Args, and Returns sections. Although long, every sentence contributes operational or decision-relevant detail; there is no padding or repetition of schema defaults.

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?

This is a complex multi-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide selecting/invoking context, parameter semantics, output shape, failure behavior, and sibling differentiation. It delivers all of these, including the key return keys and file artifacts.

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%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does. It defines schedules structure in detail, including chronological ordering, minimum count, label requirement, and the exactly-one-of xer_path/xer_content rule, plus semantics for baseline_idx, output_dir, project_name, and entitlement_milestone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run forensic windows analysis across multiple Primavera P6 XER snapshots and return the full analysis dict.' It also names the differentiating sibling tool, concurrent_delay_matrix, clarifying that this tool covers the full multi-window claim rather than just the grid view.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this tool for the full multi-window forensic claim') and points to the alternative for narrow use ('If you already have a windows result and only want the per-window × per-party grid view, call concurrent_delay_matrix instead'). It also gives practical guidance on xer_path vs xer_content for hosted/remote usage.

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 targets a distinct analytical deliverable (windows analysis, concurrency matrix, slip velocity, TIA, collapsed as-built, SRA, etc.), and descriptions explicitly cross-reference sibling tools to clarify boundaries. Some pairs like critical_path_validator vs dcma14_health_check and forensic_windows_analysis vs concurrent_delay_matrix share inputs and close conceptual territory, but the stated distinctions are clear enough to prevent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case style with descriptive noun phrases (e.g., forensic_windows_analysis, slip_velocity, xer_parser), so there is no mixing of conventions. However, the pattern is not verb_noun and a few names embed acronyms or numbers (dcma14_health_check, monte_carlo_p50_p80, woet_classifier), which is a minor deviation from a fully uniform naming scheme.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is well-scoped for a forensic CPM/schedule delay analysis server. Each tool covers a distinct method or deliverable—parsing, logic health, DCMA-14, windows analysis, concurrency, slip trends, TIA, collapsed as-built, Monte Carlo SRA, maturity assessment, WOET, path tracing, and an evidence workbench—so every tool earns its place without redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface comprehensively covers the forensic delay analysis lifecycle: input parsing, schedule logic validation, DCMA-14 health assessment, retrospective windows analysis, concurrency attribution, slip trending, prospective TIA, collapsed as-built, probabilistic SRA, maturity rating, execution classification, and raw-evidence workbench. Minor gaps like schedule editing or cost analysis exist but are outside the server's stated forensic-analysis purpose.