Skip to main content
Glama

Osha

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Osha Search

osha_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Keyword search across OSHA standards — the US workplace-safety / occupational safety and health regulations in 29 CFR (parts 1900–1990). Answers "what OSHA standards cover X", "OSHA regulation / workplace safety requirement for X", "find the OSHA rule about X". Great for topics: fall protection, hazard communication (HazCom / GHS), lockout tagout (LOTO), respiratory protection, personal protective equipment (PPE), confined space, bloodborne pathogens, machine guarding, scaffolding, excavation, permissible exposure limits, recordkeeping. Returns matching OSHA standards with citation, heading, excerpt, and source URL. Results are filtered to OSHA parts only (1910 general industry, 1926 construction, 1915/1917/1918 maritime, 1928 agriculture, 1904 recordkeeping, etc.) — Title-29 wage/hour parts are excluded. Example: osha_search({ query: "fall protection" }); osha_search({ query: "lockout tagout", limit: 15 }). Keyless.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results to return, 1–20 (default 10).
queryYesWorkplace-safety topic or phrase, e.g. "fall protection", "hazard communication", "lockout tagout", "respiratory protection", "PPE", "confined space", "bloodborne pathogens".

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying result filtering (only OSHA parts, excludes wage/hour) and mentioning 'Keyless' access. No contradiction.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists example questions and topics. It could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds useful information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (citation, heading, excerpt, URL), filter behavior, and parameter constraints. It is complete for a search tool.

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?

Schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The description enhances this with concrete usage examples and explains the limit range, adding practical meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a keyword search across OSHA standards (29 CFR 1900-1990) and lists what it returns (citation, heading, excerpt, URL). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like osha_standard.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides example queries and lists suitable topics, giving good usage context. However, it offers no guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives among siblings.

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

All Osha 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have similar purposes, such as the four ask_pipeworx variants and multiple prediction market analysis tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.). While descriptions clarify differences, the overlap could cause misselection by an agent, especially with the high number of specialized market tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case, but the pattern is not fully consistent: some start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, compare_entities) while others are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, osha_search). This minor inconsistency does not severely hinder readability.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side, but the server acts as a comprehensive data gateway covering multiple domains (financials, prediction markets, OSHA, etc.) and includes meta-tools (memory, subscriptions, feedback). The count is justified by the breadth, though it borders on being overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core workflows: data lookup (ask_pipeworx), entity profiles, comparisons, prediction market analysis, and memory management. There are minor gaps, such as no direct SEC filing retrieval tool (handled via ask_pipeworx), but the overall surface is comprehensive for the server's stated purpose.

Resources