Skip to main content
Glama
industrial-aiops

OT-AIops

rca_corpus_from_maintenance

Read-only

Build a root-cause analysis corpus from maintenance work orders, mapping each record to a labeled cause and signal via taxonomy, synonyms, or keyword inference, with unmapped rows flagged explicitly.

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description provides detailed behavioral traits: it is read-only, rows that cannot be mapped are placed in 'unmapped' with reason (no silent guessing), and signals may stay empty. This goes beyond the annotations which only indicate readOnlyHint=true.

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?

The description is well-structured with a header, paragraph, parameter list, return format, and example. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value, and the front-loading of purpose and risk helps the agent quickly understand the tool.

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 no output schema, the description includes a detailed return dict structure (corpus, n_rows, n_mapped, unmapped, mapped_via, weights?, next_step) and thoroughly explains the mapping logic. It covers all necessary details for a tool with 5 parameters and one required field.

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 coverage, the description fully explains all 5 parameters: rows (lists recognized columns), synonyms (format and constraint), learn, min_samples, smoothing. It also includes an example, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's property names.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Turn a CMMS/work-order export into the RCA incident corpus.' It explains the mapping process with priority order and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on building the corpus needed for learn_cause_weights.

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 explains when to use it (to build labeled corpus for learn_cause_weights) and provides context such as the synonym table and keyword inference. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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'

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