osha-recordkeeping-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to osha-recordkeeping-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceDeterministic rule-based medical triage with citations, using a 0.6B LLM only to check criteria (yes/no/unknown).Apache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to perform security alert triage by ingesting raw logs, extracting IOCs, querying threat intelligence sources, and generating structured NIST/MITRE assessments with reasoning traces.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for US workplace-safety standards (OSHA 29 CFR parts 1900–1990). Enables querying safety regulations via natural language through the Pipeworx gateway.13 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceA deterministic MCP server for legal intake triage that provides practice-area lookup, conflict screening, matter validation, follow-up drafting, and triage logging with a hard conflicts gate.Apache 2.0
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides policy-grounded triage of Trust & Safety reports via MCP, with tools for triage, policy search, and operational telemetry.-
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceFirst-line incident triage you can trust: ranked root-cause hypotheses where every claim cites a real evidence handle — and the agent abstains rather than guess.11MIT
TDQS
Scored across 11 tools
Each tool maps to a distinct, named regulatory decision point in the Part 1904 pipeline, and the cross-references ('Run this BEFORE...') make the flow clear. However, there is residual ambiguity risk: 'assess' tools (work_relatedness, new_case) are near-synonyms for 'evaluate' tools (restricted_work, hearing_loss), and an agent could initially hesitate between osha_assess_recordability and its sub-tools despite the explicit guidance. The two 'check' obligation gates are also conceptually parallel, though the domain separation is real.
All tool names follow a uniform snake_case `osha_<verb>_<object>` pattern, and the object nouns are clear and meaningful. However, the verb choices — assess, evaluate, check, determine, classify, route — are largely interchangeable near-synonyms that follow a subtle internal logic (check=obligation gates, assess=decision nodes, evaluate=sub-computations) that is not self-evident from the names alone. The pattern is consistent but the verb selection is slightly muddier than a strict verb_noun taxonomy.
With 11 tools, the server is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a domain as broad as Part 1904 recordkeeping. Each tool earns its place by covering a genuine regulatory gate, and the count feels appropriately granular — not so few that decisions are conflated, not so many that the surface becomes unmanageable. The split of the 1904.4 decision tree into discrete tools is justified by the complexity of each step.
The end-to-end recordkeeping lifecycle is thoroughly covered: threshold obligation → employer attribution → work-relatedness → new case → recordability → classification → privacy → establishment routing, plus severe-injury reporting. Notable gaps include the 300A annual summary and posting requirement, employee/authorized-representative access to records, and corrections to already-filed logs, but these are administrative follow-ons rather than core decision dead-ends. The coverage of 1904.8-1904.12 specific-case criteria is also mostly folded into the broader tools.