Skip to main content
Glama
industrial-aiops

OT-AIops Energy

downtime_root_cause

Read-only

Correlates downtime incident evidence (alarms, tags, state, dataflow) to rank candidate root causes, cite supporting signals, and propose a human-approved advisory action.

Instructions

[READ][risk=low] AI downtime root-cause copilot — cited verdict, ADVISORY only.

Correlates whatever evidence you supply around a downtime/incident window —
alarm events, tag samples, a diagnose_dataflow verdict, a machine-state series —
ranks candidate root causes, and cites the REAL signals behind each. Read-first:
it proposes a human-approved, undoable (MOC-gated) action but executes nothing.
Anti-hallucination: only signals present in the input are cited; thin evidence
downgrades to 'insufficient_evidence' with a 'recommended_next_data' list rather
than a confident guess. Confidence combines independent, time-correlated evidence
(signals BEFORE onset outweigh signals during it).

Args:
    window: {start (ISO-8601), end? (ISO-8601), asset?, category?}. If 'end' is
        omitted but state_series is given, the first running→stopped span bounds it.
    alarms: Alarm/condition events — {source, timestamp, message?, priority?, state?}.
    tags: Per-tag samples — {ref, samples:[scalars or {value, good|quality}],
        warn_high?, alarm_high?, ...} (scored via tag_health).
    dataflow: A diagnose_dataflow result dict (its 'verdict' localizes comms vs field).
    state_series: {timestamp, state} samples to bound the window if 'end' is absent.
    lead_window_s: How far before onset a signal may sit and still count as a cause
        (default 300s); signals after onset are treated as consequences.
    cause_weights: Optional per-site {cause: multiplier} override (e.g. from
        learn_cause_weights) — scales each cause's evidence (1.0 = neutral
        default) before the noisy-OR. Unknown causes / non-numeric weights are
        rejected; values are clamped. Omit for the shipped default weighting.
    include_graph: When true, also return a 'graph' block — the SAME verdict
        re-projected as a causal graph {nodes, edges, mermaid, meta} (signal →
        cause → downtime) for a frontend/Grafana. Pure re-shape: signal→cause
        edge weights are the evidence contribution scores, cause→symptom edge
        weights are the hypothesis confidences — no new reasoning. Omit for the
        flat verdict only (default).

When a per-site 'historian:' block is configured (~/.iaiops/config.yaml, A7),
the 2h pre-incident window is additionally pulled from that reader and scored
as historian trend evidence — cited with its source ('historian:<name>'),
window, and sample count. Without the config, behaviour is unchanged.

Returns dict: {window, verdict ('root_cause_identified'|'multiple_candidates'|
    'insufficient_evidence'), primary_cause, hypotheses:[{cause, confidence (0..1),
    confidence_band, evidence:[{signal, ref, at?, lead_time_s?, detail, weight}],
    recommended_action}], evidence_summary, recommended_next_data?,
    anti_hallucination, graph? (when include_graph): {nodes:[{id, kind
    (signal|cause|symptom), label, score, ...}], edges:[{from, to, weight,
    relation (supports|attributed_to)}], mermaid, meta}}.

Example: downtime_root_cause(window={"start":"2026-06-28T10:00:00Z","asset":"line1"},
    alarms=[{"source":"M1_DRIVE","timestamp":"2026-06-28T09:59:50Z",
             "message":"motor overload trip"}], dataflow={"verdict":"healthy"}).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNo
alarmsNo
windowYes
dataflowNo
state_seriesNo
cause_weightsNo
include_graphNo
lead_window_sNo
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, but the description goes further: 'executes nothing', 'proposes a human-approved, undoable (MOC-gated) action', and 'only signals present in the input are cited'. It also discloses anti-hallucination downgrade and lead-window weighting behavior, adding meaningful context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with [READ], an overview, Args, behavior notes, return dict, and a concrete example. Each section adds necessary detail for a complex 8-parameter tool with no output schema; nothing feels redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully defines the return dict, including hypotheses/evidence fields and optional graph. It also covers optional historian trend evidence and config-dependent behavior, making the tool safe to invoke in varied contexts.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with a detailed Args section. It explains window semantics including end-omission bound by state_series, per-argument shapes, cause_weights override/rejection/clamping, and include_graph's output behavior. This provides far more meaning than schema alone.

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?

Description opens with '[READ][risk=low] AI downtime root-cause copilot' and explicitly states it 'correlates' evidence, 'ranks candidate root causes', and 'cites the REAL signals'. This clearly identifies a specific analytical read-only tool and differentiates it from live/other siblings via its advisory, evidence-cited nature.

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?

It says to supply evidence around a downtime/incident window (alarms, tags, dataflow, state series) and clarifies when it should be used as a read-only analysis. It also explains how insufficient evidence is handled, but does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so 4 rather than 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