Skip to main content
Glama

late_risk_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identifies work orders likely to miss their due dates, helping prioritize interventions before schedule delays occur.

Instructions

Flag work orders likely to miss their due date.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "late_risk_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
todayNoISO date; defaults to the server's date

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the due-date-based risk framing but never explains how 'likely' is determined (threshold, scoring, lookahead window), which is the one behavioral detail that matters for interpreting results.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing needs trimming. Its terseness is a limitation of coverage rather than of conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and annotations cover safety. What remains missing is the definition of the risk heuristic and how results should be interpreted, which is central for a report-style tool with a vague qualifier like 'likely'.

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% and the single `today` parameter is documented in the schema as an ISO date defaulting to the server's date. The description adds nothing about it, so the baseline 3 applies; an agent would not know from the description whether `today` shifts the risk window or only the comparison point.

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 names a specific verb (flag), resource (work orders), and criterion (likely to miss their due date), which is clearly distinct from siblings like list_work_orders or utilization_report. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from those siblings or saying whether 'flag' means returning a filtered list versus annotating records.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this over list_work_orders or utilization_report, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing due dates populated. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the phrase 'likely to miss their due date'.

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