Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
safe-mind-tools

safe-mind-tools

by lewo-media
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

safe_mind_create_survey

Create a survey draft for a psychological risk assessment, returning its ID, status, dates, and participation and edit links. Departments and locations are reused or created automatically.

Instructions

Create a survey draft for the psychological risk assessment and return its id, status "draft", dates, participation link and an edit link. Departments and locations are passed by name; missing ones are created, existing ones reused. The draft is not visible to employees yet: the account owner reviews it and starts it in the Safe Mind app via the edit link (payment happens there). Drafts cannot be edited or deleted through the API, so confirm the inputs with the user first. Requires an API key: set SAFE_MIND_API_KEY or call safe_mind_get_api_key first. Acts on the company of the account behind the key.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoSurvey title shown to employees. Default: "<company> - Psychische Gefährdungsbeurteilung <year>".
locationsNoOptional location names for multi-site companies, e.g. ["Hamburg", "Bielefeld"].
startDateYesFirst day of the survey as YYYY-MM-DD, e.g. "2026-11-02".
departmentsYesNames of the departments/areas employees choose from, e.g. ["Produktion", "Verwaltung"]. At least one. Use the exact names from safe_mind_list_departments to reuse existing areas.
durationWeeksYesRuntime in weeks. Allowed: 2 weeks up to the template maximum (currently 6). The template recommends at least 4 weeks; 2-3 weeks are accepted but not recommended (lower response rate, more groups below the anonymity threshold).
employeeCountYesNumber of employees invited to take part; also the participant limit of the survey.
analyticsMinThresholdNoAnonymity threshold: smallest group whose results are shown in segmented analytics. Minimum 5, default 7. Higher protects small teams better.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / analyticsMinThreshold / description
      Previous value: -"Minimum group size for segmented analytics (default 7)"New value: +"Anonymity threshold: smallest group whose results are shown in segmented analytics. Minimum 5, default 7. Higher protects small teams better."
    • addedInput schema / properties / departments / description
      Added value: +"Names of the departments/areas employees choose from, e.g. [\"Produktion\", \"Verwaltung\"]. At least one. Use the exact names from safe_mind_list_departments to reuse existing areas."
    • addedInput schema / properties / durationWeeks / description
      Added value: +"Runtime in weeks. Allowed: 2 weeks up to the template maximum (currently 6). The template recommends at least 4 weeks; 2-3 weeks are accepted but not recommended (lower response rate, more groups below the anonymity threshold)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / employeeCount / description
      Added value: +"Number of employees invited to take part; also the participant limit of the survey."
    • addedInput schema / properties / locations / description
      Added value: +"Optional location names for multi-site companies, e.g. [\"Hamburg\", \"Bielefeld\"]."
    • changedInput schema / properties / startDate / description
      Previous value: -"YYYY-MM-DD, first day of the survey"New value: +"First day of the survey as YYYY-MM-DD, e.g. \"2026-11-02\"."
    • addedInput schema / properties / title / description
      Added value: +"Survey title shown to employees. Default: \"<company> - Psychische Gefährdungsbeurteilung <year>\"."
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses return fields (id, status, dates, participation and edit links), side effects (missing departments/locations are created, existing ones reused), lifecycle state (draft not visible to employees, immutable via API), auth requirement, and account/company scoping.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then side effects, lifecycle constraints, and prerequisites in order of importance. Every sentence adds actionable information with no repetition of schema content.

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, yet the description enumerates the return payload. Combined with side-effect disclosure, immutability warning, and auth instructions, an agent has everything needed to call this 7-parameter mutation tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so 3 is the baseline, but the description adds semantics beyond it: departments and locations are passed by name and missing names are auto-created while existing ones are reused. That resolves the ambiguity of whether these parameters create or reference entities, which the schema only partly implies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a survey draft") scoped to the psychological risk assessment, and the sibling names (list_surveys, get_survey) make the create vs. read distinction obvious. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: the draft is invisible to employees, the owner starts it in-app via the edit link, and inputs should be confirmed with the user first because drafts cannot be edited or deleted via the API. It also states the API-key prerequisite and points to safe_mind_get_api_key. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives for creating departments/locations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools