Skip to main content
Glama
industrial-aiops

OT-AIops Energy

rca_corpus_from_maintenance

Read-only

Turn maintenance work orders into a labeled RCA incident corpus, mapping root causes automatically via taxonomy, synonyms, or keyword inference.

Instructions

[READ][risk=low] Turn a CMMS/work-order export into the RCA incident corpus.

Auto-builds the labeled history learn_cause_weights needs from closed maintenance
records: an explicit taxonomy cause column wins; else a built-in EN/中文 CMMS
synonym table (extendable via 'synonyms'); else UNAMBIGUOUS keyword inference
over the row's free text using the copilot's own cause keywords. Rows it cannot
map land in 'unmapped' with the reason — never silently guessed. 'signals' come
from an explicit column or the symptom/alarm text (may stay empty — no fabricated
evidence). Pure + advisory; with learn=true the learned weights are included.

Args:
    rows: Work-order records, one dict each. Recognized cause columns:
        cause / root_cause / failure_class / category / problem_code; free-text
        columns: description / problem / notes / comment / text / 故障描述;
        signal text: symptom(s) / alarm(s) / 现象.
    synonyms: Extra site vocabulary, e.g. {"spindle crash": "mechanical_fault"};
        values must be taxonomy causes.
    learn: Also run learn_cause_weights on the mapped corpus (default true).
    min_samples: Passed to learn_cause_weights (default 8).
    smoothing: Passed to learn_cause_weights (default 1.0).

Returns dict: {corpus:[{cause, signals}], n_rows, n_mapped, unmapped:[{row,
    reason, excerpt}], mapped_via, weights?, next_step}.

Example: rca_corpus_from_maintenance(rows=[{"category":"轴承损坏",
    "symptom":"drive overload alarm"}], synonyms={"spindle crash":"mechanical_fault"}).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowsYes
learnNo
synonymsNo
smoothingNo
min_samplesNo
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description discloses the full decision pipeline (explicit taxonomy > synonym table > unambiguous keyword inference), states that unmapped rows are returned with reasons rather than silently guessed, and notes that signals may be empty with no fabricated evidence. It also explains the 'advisory' nature and behavior when learn=true.

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 well-structured with a summary line, behavioral explanation, args list, return format, and example. Every element adds information without filler; the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explicitly lists the return dict structure and provides an example. It covers purpose, fallback logic, parameter semantics, and output format, making it comprehensive for a tool with this complexity and sibling context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing recognized cause and free-text columns for rows, providing a concrete synonym example, and explaining learn, min_samples, and smoothing as parameters passed to learn_cause_weights. This gives far more meaning than the bare schema types/defaults.

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 a specific verb+resource statement: 'Turn a CMMS/work-order export into the RCA incident corpus.' It further explains it auto-builds the labeled history needed by learn_cause_weights, distinguishing it from sibling tools like learn_cause_weights or downtime_root_cause.

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 tool's context is clear: use it to build an RCA corpus from closed maintenance records, optionally feeding learn_cause_weights. It references learn_cause_weights as a downstream consumer but does not explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives or exclusions, so it falls 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