Skip to main content
Glama

derive_transitions

Derive transitions between two finish types by comparing every room of each, committing where finishes touch in the same space and flagging wall-separated thresholds for manual confirmation.

Instructions

Mint the transition where two finishes MEET (#202) — the derivation that follows derive_base, and the line an estimator draws by hand on every job. Pass the two finish tags and the tag the transition commits under (e.g. condition_a 'CPT-1', condition_b 'PT-1', condition 'T-1'), and every committed room of each is compared against every committed room of the other.

WHAT THE GEOMETRY ACTUALLY IS, because it decides what you get back: flood-traced rooms DO NOT SHARE EDGES. A trace fills to the wall linework, so two rooms across a partition are separated by four to eight inches of nothing — testing for a shared edge finds zero transitions on a real planset. What is there is proximity, in two flavours that mean completely different things:

• BUTT JOINT — the two rings run together inside ONE open space (a lobby that changes from carpet to tile with no wall between). The transition IS that run, and it commits as a linear shape under your tag, origin.derived naming both parent shapes and the measured gap.

• WALL-SEPARATED — the rings run parallel across a partition. The rooms are adjacent, but the transition is NOT the shared wall: it is a threshold, in the doorway, and NOTHING in the trace record says where the doorway is (the flood engine seals openings and reports how MUCH boundary it synthesised, never where). Committing 34 LF of threshold because two rooms share 34 LF of wall would be a wrong bid with a machine's confidence behind it. These come back in withheld — measured, with their length, their gap in inches, and an at point — as questions you answer by LOOKING (view_sheet at at, then measure_line or place_count the threshold yourself). The symbol_sweep doctrine: a near-match is never a silent commit and never a silent drop.

Tuning: max_gap_in (default 12) is how far apart two rings can be and still count as adjacent at all — raise it for thick walls, and every extra inch turns more of the plan into wall_separated questions, never into committed LF. min_run_in (default 12) drops corner artifacts. The butt-joint threshold is fixed at one inch and is not a knob: "these two finishes touch" is not a judgement call.

All-or-nothing, like derive_base: an unknown tag, a transition landing on either source tag, the same tag twice, or a sheet without a scale refuses the whole call before anything commits. The whole sweep is ONE undo step. After it, LOOK — view_sheet {overlay: true} over each run — before trusting total_lf. Coordinates are image px at render scale 2.0: PDF pt × 2, origin top-left, y down (the browser canvas's native space). Sheet payloads carry dims in both px and pt.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
conditionYesFinish tag the transitions commit under (minted on first use), e.g. 'T-1'. Must differ from both sources
max_gap_inNoHow far apart two rings can be and still count as adjacent, in inches (default 12 — a thick partition). Wider only produces more wall_separated QUESTIONS, never more committed LF
min_run_inNoShortest run worth reporting, in inches (default 12) — below this is a corner where two rooms clip, not a transition
condition_aYesFirst finish tag, e.g. 'CPT-1' — its committed rooms are walked, and runs are traced along their boundaries
condition_bYesSecond finish tag, e.g. 'PT-1'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYes
runsYes
betweenYesThe two finish tags
total_lfYesSum of committed run lengths — butt joints only
withheldYesAdjacency across a wall: real, measured, and NOT committed — the transition there is a threshold at a doorway this cannot locate
committedYes
conditionYesThe tag the transitions committed under
withheld_lfYesShared-wall length held back — never part of total_lf
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and goes far beyond it: it discloses all-or-nothing atomicity ('refuses the whole call before anything commits'), the single-undo-step behavior, the committed vs. withheld output split, coordinate system specifics (image px at scale 2.0, origin top-left, y down), and failure conditions. It also explains the critical geometric nuance that flood-traced rooms do not share edges, which materially affects what the tool returns.

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 long, but every paragraph earns its place for a tool with complex geometric behavior. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, then systematically covers geometry, tuning, failure modes, and post-conditions. The structure uses clear signposts ('WHAT THE GEOMETRY ACTUALLY IS', 'Tuning:', 'All-or-nothing') to make the length navigable.

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 remarkably complete for a complex tool, covering input semantics, output semantics (committed vs. withheld, total_lf), coordinate system, failure conditions, undo behavior, and recommended follow-up actions. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to enumerate return fields, but it still explains the meaning of those fields and the operational context, exceeding the minimum needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains that condition is 'minted on first use', elaborates on max_gap_in's trade-off ('Wider only produces more wall_separated QUESTIONS, never more committed LF'), clarifies min_run_in as a corner artifact filter, and contextualizes condition_a/condition_b with examples. This is exactly the kind of semantic enrichment that helps an agent choose correct parameter values.

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 by naming the exact operation: 'Mint the transition where two finishes MEET (#202)', which is specific and action-oriented. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly calling out that it 'follows derive_base' and by referencing the 'symbol_sweep doctrine' to differentiate its behavior from symbol_sweep.

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 clearly establishes when to use this tool—after derive_base, when two finish tags require a transition—and gives practical tuning guidance ('raise it for thick walls'). It also directs users to alternatives for follow-up actions ('view_sheet at `at`, then measure_line or place_count the threshold yourself'), but it does not provide explicit 'when not to use' exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Kentucky-ai/opentakeoff'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server