Skip to main content
Glama

sheet_graph

Builds a complete index of the plan set—sheet roles, schedules, room tags, callouts, building designators—so agents can decide what to measure without manual enumeration.

Instructions

The plan-set INDEX (#87): every sheet's role (plan / schedule / legend / …, with confidence and the title evidence), the schedule tables found (kind, row count, region — a schedule CONTINUED across sheets ("… SCHEDULE — CONT'D") reads as ONE table, the continuation fragment naming its base in "continues"; rotated column headers are read at their quarter-turn and flagged), every room tag on the plan sheets (with the stacked room NAME when one exists, and the room's BUILDING on multi-building sets), the detail callouts (3/A-601 → sheet edges), the set's building designators, and named indexing gaps in "notes". Built once per document from the text layer and cached. This is how an agent decides WHAT to measure without a human enumerating the rooms: list the rooms here, resolve each with resolve_tag, then measure with one_click/detect_rooms. A scanned set (no text layer) returns available: false — unavailable, never half-populated. 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

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoNamed gaps found while indexing (e.g. a continuation whose rows could not be aligned) — the graph refuses silently dropping anything
roomsYesRoom tags read off plan-role sheets — schedule sheets contribute rows, never phantom rooms
countsYes
sheetsYes
calloutsYesDetail callouts (3/A-601) — edges to their target sheets
availableYesfalse = the set has no text layer (a scan) — the graph degrades to unavailable, never half-populates
buildingsNoEvery building designator the set names (sorted) — present only on multi-building-aware sets. Room numbers reused across these need qualified tags ('A-134')
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses caching ('Built once per document... cached'), failure behavior for scanned sets ('unavailable, never half-populated'), coordinate system (render scale 2.0, origin top-left, y down), and that sheet payloads include both px and pt dimensions.

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 information-dense; each sentence earns its place by covering a distinct aspect: index contents, continuation handling, workflow, edge cases, and coordinate system. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool's complexity and lack of annotations, the description thoroughly covers the return payload (e.g., detail callouts '3/A-601 → sheet edges'), edge cases for rotated headers and scanned sets, coordinate system, and workflow integration. An agent has sufficient context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything (100% coverage of an empty schema). The description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist; per the rubric, baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as 'The plan-set INDEX' and enumerates its outputs: sheet roles, schedule tables, room tags, detail callouts, building designators, and indexing gaps. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling measurement/resolution tools by positioning itself as the way an agent decides WHAT to measure.

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?

The description provides an explicit workflow: 'list the rooms here, resolve each with resolve_tag, then measure with one_click/detect_rooms.' It also notes the scanned-set condition (available: false) and mentions caching, giving clear context for when and how to use the tool.

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