Retrieve a comprehensive summary of productivity, quality, and downtime KPIs for a specified time period. Ideal for factory performance monitoring.
Bundles Productivity, Quality, and Downtime KPIs into a single summary.
Args:
start_time: ISO 8601 string
end_time: ISO 8601 string
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_time | Yes | ||
| start_time | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it bundles KPIs, without mentioning auth needs, data scope, performance implications, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and parameter format. However, it could include more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic function. However, it lacks guidance on usage context and does not compensate for missing annotations. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It provides format ('ISO 8601 string') which adds value beyond the bare schema, but does not explain the expected time range, relationship between start and end, or constraints. The parameter names are self-explanatory, limiting the need for extensive semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool bundles three specific KPIs (Productivity, Quality, Downtime) into a single summary, using a clear verb+resource structure. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by consolidating what they do individually.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining a combined KPI view, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the individual KPI siblings. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lvshrd/Factory-Intelligence-MCP-Server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server