Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

X3 Compliance

by io.github.x3allamerican
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Must an employer keep OSHA records and file them electronically?

osha_coverage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check 29 CFR 1904.1, 1904.2 and 1904.41: whether a company must keep OSHA 300/300A/301 records (size and partially exempt NAICS industries) and whether an establishment must submit Form 300A, and Forms 300 and 301, to OSHA's Injury Tracking Application, with the due date and posting calendar.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "naics": "<naics>",
      "peakCompanyEmployees": "<peakCompanyEmployees>",
      "peakEstablishmentEmployees": "<peakEstablishmentEmployees>",
      "year": "<year>"
    },
    "name": "osha_coverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearYesCalendar year the records cover
naicsYesThe establishment's NAICS code (6 digits best)
peakCompanyEmployeesYesMost employees the whole company had at one time in the year
peakEstablishmentEmployeesYesMost employees at this establishment at one time in the year

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing what the answer contains: a determination of which forms are required, the Injury Tracking Application submission requirement, and the due date and posting calendar. It does not, however, explain how partial-exemption thresholds are resolved or what the response shape looks like.

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?

It is a single sentence front-loaded with the action and the governing citations, then the two coverage questions, then the deliverable calendar. Nothing is padded or repeated, and the compression is appropriate for a lookup tool with a fully documented schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully signals that the response includes filing deadlines and the posting calendar, which is exactly the extra context an agent needs to trust the call. The only notable gap is that state-plan variation (a sibling concern) is left unaddressed. For a read-only four-parameter determination tool it is otherwise sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented, and the description only alludes to the company-vs-establishment size distinction ('size and partially exempt NAICS industries'). It doesn't clarify why both peakCompanyEmployees and peakEstablishmentEmployees are needed or how the year affects thresholds. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with named regulations (29 CFR 1904.1, 1904.2, 1904.41) and enumerates the two distinct determinations made: recordkeeping duty (size and exempt NAICS) and electronic submission of 300A/300/301. That is far more precise than the title alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like osha_is_recordable or osha_state_jurisdiction, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Scope and implied use are clear from the regulatory citations and the form names, so an agent can infer this is the establishment-level coverage/filing-obligation check. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing statement pointing an agent asking about a single injury to osha_is_recordable or about state-plan rules to osha_state_jurisdiction.

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

All X3 Compliance toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources