Skip to main content
Glama
industrial-aiops

OT-AIops Energy

substation_event_analysis

Read-only

Analyze substation sequence-of-events to classify protection response as selective trip, backup operation, or breaker failure.

Instructions

[READ][risk=low] Analyse a substation Sequence-of-Events for protection selectivity.

Pure structural analysis over INJECTED events (no live protocol I/O, no
endpoint): given relay pickups/trips, breaker open/close, lockouts and bus
undervoltage with ISO-8601 timestamps, decide what tripped and whether
protection coordinated — a selective trip (one zone contained), a
non-selective backup operation (wider outage), or a breaker failure.
Monitor-only, advisory, cite-first (every claim ties to a timestamped event).

Args:
    events: SOE list of {ref, timestamp (ISO-8601), type, label?}; ``type``
        is one of protection_pickup / protection_trip / breaker_open /
        breaker_close / lockout / bus_undervoltage (a free-text ``label`` is
        keyword-matched when ``type`` is absent or unknown). ``ref`` is the
        point name / IOA.
    breaker_fail_window_s: Breaker-failure timer — the tripped breaker's own
        open must be seen within this many seconds (default 0.25).
    backup_margin_s: Backup coordination margin — a breaker opening later
        than this past the first protection event is treated as backup
        operation (default 0.5).

Returns dict: {events_analyzed, ignored, verdict, first_protection,
    first_breaker_open, breakers_opened, breaker_open_count, affected_refs,
    timeline, coordination{status, detail}, note}. ``verdict`` is one of
    selective_trip / backup_operation / breaker_failure / insufficient.

Example: substation_event_analysis(events=[
    {"ref": "R1", "type": "protection_trip", "timestamp": "2026-07-12T10:00:00Z"},
    {"ref": "BK1", "type": "breaker_open", "timestamp": "2026-07-12T10:00:00.08Z"}]).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventsYes
backup_margin_sNo
breaker_fail_window_sNo
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's '[READ][risk=low]' and 'Monitor-only' are consistent. It adds valuable behavioral context: 'Pure structural analysis over INJECTED events', the cite-first requirement, and the keyword-matching fallback for unknown event types, which go beyond annotation data.

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, front-loading the purpose, then Args, Returns, and Example. While detailed, each section adds value and no redundant or filler text is present.

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 includes a return dict with all key names and the verdict enumeration. It also provides a concrete example call. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is fully sufficient 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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description thoroughly documents all three parameters. It explains the events list with required fields and allowed type values, and gives semantic meaning and defaults for breaker_fail_window_s and backup_margin_s, fully compensating for the schema's silence.

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 'Analyse a substation Sequence-of-Events for protection selectivity', clearly specifying a verb, resource, and outcome. It further contrasts with live protocol tools by noting 'no live protocol I/O, no endpoint', differentiating it from siblings like iec61850_read or historian_query.

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 defines the exact use case: analyzing relay/breaker/lockout/bus undervoltage events to classify trips. It notes it is 'Monitor-only, advisory' and involves 'no live protocol I/O', indicating when not to use it, but it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for those scenarios.

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