Skip to main content
Glama
kaneyxx

Weekly Report Checker

by kaneyxx

get_submission_stats

Retrieve statistics about weekly report submissions to monitor completion rates and identify missing reports in Google Sheets.

Instructions

Get statistics about weekly report submissions

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'get_submission_stats' tool. It is decorated with @mcp.tool(), which registers it as an MCP tool. Computes submission statistics by calling the helper get_report_data() and formats the result as a string.
    @mcp.tool()
    def get_submission_stats() -> str:
        """Get statistics about weekly report submissions"""
        report_data = get_report_data()
        
        # Calculate statistics
        total = len(NAME_LIST)
        submitted = sum(1 for name in NAME_LIST if report_data[name]["submitted"])
        
        return f"""週報提交統計:
    已提交:{submitted}/{total} ({round(submitted/total*100 if total else 0, 1)}%)
    """
  • Shared helper function used by get_submission_stats (and other tools) to fetch and process weekly report submission data from Google Sheets.
    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
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves statistics but doesn't specify what kind of statistics, whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and sibling tools present, it lacks context on usage and behavioral traits, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps in guiding the agent effectively.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any, earning a baseline score of 4 for tools with no parameters.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'statistics about weekly report submissions', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_missing_reports' or 'check_person_report', which likely serve related but distinct purposes in the reporting domain.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling tools. It lacks context about specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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