Skip to main content
Glama

export_report

Produce a takeoff report with computed quantities, materials buy list, and project-wide roll-ups for pricing handoff.

Instructions

The computed Report document — "opentakeoff.report.v1", the same schema the canvas Report's JSON export writes. Everything a pricing consumer needs without re-implementing the app's math: per-condition quantities with waste and multiplier applied (gross and *_net), the computed materials BUY LIST per condition (order quantity = basis ÷ coverage rate, rounded up to whole purchase units) plus the project-wide roll-up summed by (name, unit), per-sheet BASE subtotals, scale provenance per sheet, and annotations. Contrast: export_takeoff is the raw canvas payload (materials as CONFIG rows, no computed quantities) and takeoff_summary strips materials for a compact reply — when the numbers are leaving for pricing, consume this. A report alone is HALF the deliverable: pair it with export_marked_pdf, because a takeoff is reviewed on marked drawings, not on numbers. Returned inline; pass path to also write it to disk as JSON.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoFile path to write the document to
overwriteNoReplace the file at path even when it is not an OpenTakeoff export. Off by default: re-exporting over a previous export of your own already overwrites without this, so you only need it to deliberately destroy an unrelated file.
project_nameNoLabel for the document's project_name field (a headless session has no project of its own; omitted → null)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rfisYes
unitsYes
schemaYes
sheetsYesScale provenance per sheet — how each scale was set
totalsYes
markupsYes
by_labelYes
by_sheetYesBASE per-sheet subtotals — multiplier NOT applied, no waste, no materials
materialsYesProject-wide buy list — condition rows summed by (name, unit)
conditionsYesconditionTotals rows: gross + *_net quantities AND the computed materials buy list
roll_goodsYesRoll-goods order rows (#136) — order_lf / rolls / order_qty per roll-goods condition, ×N applied; empty when no condition carries a roll_setup (always the case for a headless session today)
project_nameYes
shape_labelsYes
display_unitsYes
generated_withYes
condition_columnsYes
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the call returns an inline JSON and optionally writes to disk via path ('Returned inline; pass path to also write it to disk as JSON'). It clarifies the schema compatibility and that it is computed. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect safety (e.g., no project changes) or any failure conditions, which would push it to 5.

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 front-loaded with a precise definition, then logically flows through contents, sibling contrast, usage guidance, and output behavior. Each sentence adds new information—no filler or repetition of schema. Despite length, it earns its place.

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 tool is complex, but the description thoroughly covers contents, use case, alternatives, and complementary tools. It also explains the 'half deliverable' pairing rationale. With an output schema present, the detailed return-value enumeration still adds value by explaining what the report computes and why it matters.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter ('path', 'overwrite', 'project_name') already documented. The description only indirectly references path ('pass path to also write it to disk') and does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'The computed Report document — "opentakeoff.report.v1"' immediately identifying the tool as producing a specific, computed report. It enumerates detailed contents (per-condition quantities with waste/multiplier, BUY LIST, roll-ups, per-sheet subtotals, scale provenance, annotations) and explicitly contrasts with export_takeoff and takeoff_summary, making it unmistakable from siblings.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'when the numbers are leaving for pricing, consume this.' It also says 'A report alone is HALF the deliverable: pair it with export_marked_pdf' and contrasts with raw payload export_takeoff and compact takeoff_summary. This clearly states when to use, when not to, and recommends a complementary sibling.

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