Skip to main content
Glama

resolve_tag

Resolves a room tag to its room-finish schedule row and material definitions, citing sheet, text, bbox evidence. Handles continuation sheets; reports unresolved or ambiguous tags.

Instructions

Resolve ONE room tag across the set (#87): the plan tag → its room-finish schedule row → each finish code's definition in the finish/material schedule, EVERY edge carrying an evidence pointer (sheet + literal text + bbox — pass a bbox to view_sheet to look at the source). Rows carried by a continuation sheet ("… SCHEDULE — CONT'D") resolve exactly like base-sheet rows, citing the sheet the ink is on. The doctrine is refusal over guessing: a room that appears on the plan with no schedule row returns status "unresolved" with the reason (and still cites the plan tag); reused room numbers return "ambiguous" rather than picking one — on a multi-building set the refusal LISTS the candidate rows per building, and a building-qualified tag ("A-134") picks the building the set names. 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
tagYesThe room tag as drawn, e.g. "134" or "139A" — or building-qualified on a multi-building set, e.g. "A-134" (building A, room 134)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagYes
roomYesThe plan tag, when the room appears on a plan sheet — cited even when resolution fails. null on a multi-building ambiguity: citing one building's tag would be quietly wrong
reasonNounresolved only — WHY (no schedule row / ambiguous / no schedule found). A room that appears on the plan with no row comes back here, never as a silent omission
statusYes
sourcesNoThe chain: plan tag → schedule row (the row cites the sheet that CARRIES it — under a continuation that is the CONT'D sheet)
buildingNoresolved only — the building whose schedule row answered, when the set names buildings
finishesNo
candidatesNounresolved only — every schedule row that COULD have answered (an ambiguous multi-building tag lists one per building; qualify the tag, e.g. "A-134", to pick)
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly covers edge cases (continuation sheets, reused room numbers, multi-building ambiguity), the coordinate system (PDF pt × 2, origin top-left, y down), and evidence pointer details. This is far beyond typical, making behavior highly predictable.

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 dense and every sentence adds technical or behavioral detail. It front-loads the main purpose and then systematically addresses complications. Though long, it is efficient for the complexity of the resolution process.

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 the moderate complexity, the description covers the full resolution process, edge cases, coordinate conventions, and evidence citing. An output schema exists (though not shown) so return values are structured; the description adds context around statuses and evidence links, making it complete for an agent.

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?

The schema already describes the 'tag' parameter with examples, and coverage is 100%. The description adds further meaning by explaining how building-qualified tags ('A-134') are interpreted within a multi-building set and that the tag is 'as drawn', which complements the schema without redundancy.

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 'Resolve ONE room tag across the set' – a specific verb and resource, and then precisely traces the resolution chain through plan tag → schedule row → finish code definition, with evidence pointers. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like detect_rooms (detection) or find_schedule (schedule finding).

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 implies when to use it (resolving a room tag across schedules) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The refinement of refusal behavior ('refusal over guessing') provides some usage context but no direct comparison with siblings.

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