Skip to main content
Glama
industrial-aiops

OT-AIops Energy

data_quality_scorecard

Read-only

Scores OT tag data 0-100 for trustworthiness, flagging staleness, dead heartbeats, bad quality, flatlines, gaps, and anomalies. Rolls up per endpoint and fleet to reveal unreliable feeds.

Instructions

[READ][risk=low] Fleet data-TRUST scorecard across endpoints' tag feeds.

Scores each tag 0-100 on whether its data can be BELIEVED — staleness, dead
heartbeat, bad-quality, flatline, gaps, anomaly — then rolls up per endpoint
and across the fleet. NOT process health (it does not score whether a value is
alarming, only whether it is trustworthy). Pure analysis over provided feeds.

Args:
    feeds: Per-endpoint feeds — {endpoint, tags:[{ref, label?, samples:[scalars
        or {value, good|quality, timestamp?}], expected_update_s?, heartbeat?}]}.
    default_staleness_s: Max sample-age before 'stale' when a tag sets no
        expected_update_s (default 300).
    now: ISO-8601 reference time for staleness (deterministic); omit for now-UTC.

Returns dict: {evaluated_endpoints, evaluated_tags, fleet_score (0-100),
    fleet_status, issue_breakdown{}, worst_endpoints[], worst_tags[],
    endpoints:[{endpoint, score, status, status_counts, worst_tag}]}.

Example: data_quality_scorecard(feeds=[{"endpoint":"line1","tags":[{"ref":"hb",
    "heartbeat":true,"samples":[5,5,5,5]}]}]).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nowNo
feedsYes
default_staleness_sNo
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: scoring criteria (staleness, dead heartbeat, quality, flatline, gaps, anomaly), deterministic 'now' handling, and the explicit limitation that it does not evaluate whether values are alarming. These details go well beyond what annotations convey.

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 enough to cover a complex tool but every sentence serves a purpose: summary, exclusion, parameter details, return structure, and example. It is well-structured with labels and a clear example, keeping all information directly usable.

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 sparse input schema, absence of output schema, and presence of closely related sibling tools, the description is remarkably complete. It documents the expected feeds structure, parameter defaults, return dict contents, and a usage example, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds by fully specifying the structure of 'feeds', explaining defaults for 'default_staleness_s' and 'now', and providing a concrete example call. The parameter semantics are thoroughly compensated.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Scores') and resource ('data-TRUST scorecard across endpoints' tag feeds'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from process health by noting it assesses trustworthiness, not alarming values. This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like health_summary and anomaly_scan.

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 provides a clear when-not-to-use exclusion ('NOT process health') and states it is 'Pure analysis over provided feeds.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use this when X' beyond the inherent purpose, so it stops 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/industrial-aiops/industrial-aiops-energy'

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