Skip to main content
Glama
kaneyxx

Weekly Report Checker

by kaneyxx

check_person_report

Verify weekly report submission status for a specific person. Use this tool to check if an individual has submitted their required weekly report.

Instructions

Check if a specific person has submitted their weekly report

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function for the 'check_person_report' tool. It fetches report data from Google Sheets via get_report_data() and checks the submission status for the specified person, returning a formatted status message.
    @mcp.tool()
    def check_person_report(name: str) -> str:
        """Check if a specific person has submitted their weekly report"""
        report_data = get_report_data()
        
        if name not in report_data:
            return f"找不到 {name} 的資料。請確認名字是否正確。"
        
        if report_data[name]["submitted"]:
            return f"{name} 已於 {report_data[name]['timestamp']} 提交週報({report_data[name]['days_ago']} 天前)。\n內容摘要:{report_data[name]['content'][:100]}..."
        else:
            return f"{name} 尚未提交本週週報。"
  • Key helper function that connects to Google Sheets, fetches weekly report data for predefined list of names (NAME_LIST), processes timestamps and content, and determines submission status within the last ~6-7 days.
    def get_report_data() -> Dict[str, Dict]:
        """Helper function to get report data from Google Sheets"""
        # Connect to Google Sheets
        sa = gspread.service_account(filename=SERVICE_ACCOUNT_FILE)
        sh = sa.open("週報")
        wks = sh.worksheet("週報")
        
        # Get current time
        current_time = datetime.datetime.now()
        
        # Dictionary to store report data for each person
        report_data = {name: {
            "submitted": False,
            "timestamp": None,
            "content": None,
            "days_ago": None
        } for name in NAME_LIST}
        
        # Check each row in the sheet
        for i in range(2, 15):  # Assuming data starts from row 2 and goes to row 14
            try:
                row = wks.get(f"A{i}:F{i}")
                if not row or not row[0][0]:  # Skip empty rows
                    continue
                    
                # Parse the timestamp from the sheet
                item_time = datetime.datetime.strptime(row[0][0], '%m/%d/%Y %H:%M:%S')
                name = row[0][2]  # Assuming name is in column C
                
                # Skip if the name is not in our list
                if name not in report_data:
                    continue
                    
                # Calculate days ago
                delta_sec = (current_time - item_time).total_seconds()
                days_ago = delta_sec / 86400  # Convert seconds to days
                
                # Check if the report was submitted within the last 6 days (518400 seconds + 12 hours buffer)
                if delta_sec < (518400 + 43200):
                    report_data[name] = {
                        "submitted": True,
                        "timestamp": item_time.strftime('%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S'),
                        "content": row[0][3] if len(row[0]) > 3 else "No content",  # Assuming content is in column D
                        "days_ago": round(days_ago, 1)
                    }
            except Exception:
                continue
        
        return report_data
  • The @mcp.tool() decorator registers the check_person_report function as an MCP tool.
    @mcp.tool()
  • Predefined list of team members whose reports are checked.
    # Define the name lists
    NAME_LIST = ["陳冠宇", "林柏志", "潘班", "董屹煊", "王宇軒", "許圃瑄", "陳冠言", "黃祈緯", "黃渝凌"]
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'checks' a report, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify what 'check' entails (e.g., returns a boolean, detailed status, or error if not found). It also lacks information on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly, which is ideal for a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which should cover return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter semantics, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like what the check returns or error conditions, making it incomplete for full agent understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no additional parameter information. It mentions 'specific person' but doesn't specify what 'name' parameter represents (e.g., full name, username, ID) or its format. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('weekly report') for a specific person. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_missing_reports' (which likely checks for missing reports across multiple people) and 'get_submission_stats' (which likely provides statistical data). However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from siblings beyond the specific person focus.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by specifying 'weekly report' and 'specific person,' suggesting it should be used when checking individual submission status. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_missing_reports' or 'get_submission_stats,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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/kaneyxx/weekly-report-mcp'

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