Skip to main content
Glama

Osha

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Osha Standard

osha_standard
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the full text of one OSHA standard (US workplace-safety / occupational safety and health regulation) by its citation. OSHA standards are 29 CFR — this returns the exact regulatory wording currently in force. Answers "what is the OSHA standard for X", "does OSHA require X", "read the text of 1910.132", "the OSHA fall protection rule". Forgiving citation input: "1910.132", "29 CFR 1910.132", "§1910.132", "1926.501", even "1910.132(a)" (paragraph is stripped to the section). Covers 29 CFR 1910 general industry, 1926 construction, 1915/1917/1918 maritime, 1928 agriculture, plus recordkeeping (1904) and PPE / hazard communication / lockout tagout / respiratory protection / confined space / bloodborne pathogens standards. Pass a whole part (e.g. "1910" or "1926") to get that part's section list instead. Example: osha_standard({ citation: "1910.132" }) → PPE general requirements; osha_standard({ citation: "1926.501" }) → construction fall protection. Keyless.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
citationYesOSHA standard citation. A section: "1910.132", "29 CFR 1910.1200", "§1910.147", "1926.501", "1910.132(a)". Or a whole part: "1910", "1926", "1926 subpart M" → returns the part's section list.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: 'returns exact regulatory wording currently in force', 'forgiving citation input', and behavior for whole parts returning section lists. 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 information-dense but well-structured: core function, use cases, input flexibility, scope, part behavior, examples. It could be slightly more concise but every sentence adds value.

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 adequately covers return values (exact regulatory wording or section list). It also specifies scope (29 CFR parts), input flexibility, and includes examples. For a one-parameter tool, this is thoroughly complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and one parameter, the description adds significant value: examples, input format variations, and behavior for different citation forms (section vs part). This goes well beyond the schema's basic 'string' description.

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 retrieves the full text of one OSHA standard by citation, with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'OSHA standard'. It includes examples and distinguishes from likely sibling tool 'osha_search' by focusing on exact regulatory text rather than search.

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 description provides explicit use cases like 'what is the OSHA standard for X' and 'read the text of 1910.132'. It implicitly contrasts with osha_search but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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