Skip to main content
Glama
srhtdmrkl

osha-recordkeeping-mcp

by srhtdmrkl

Assess Work-Relatedness (29 CFR 1904.5)

osha_assess_work_relatedness
Read-onlyIdempotent

Determine if an injury or illness is work-related under OSHA 1904.5, returning work_related, not_work_related, or requires_judgment for employer evaluation. Run before assessing recordability.

Instructions

Determine whether an injury or illness is work-related — the gate every other Part 1904 determination depends on. 1904.5(a) presumes work-relatedness for anything arising from the work environment unless one of the nine closed exceptions in 1904.5(b)(2) applies. Run this BEFORE osha_assess_recordability and pass its work_related result through. Returns one of three verdicts: work_related, not_work_related, or requires_judgment — the last when the regulation itself calls for the employer's evaluation (unclear origin under 1904.5(b)(3), travel status, working at home) or when an exception's 'solely' requirement is not established. Treat requires_judgment as a question to put to the user, never as a licence to pick. Reference and triage only — not legal advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
origin_is_clearYesIs it clear whether the precipitating event occurred at work or away from work? Pass false when the narrative genuinely does not establish this — 1904.5(b)(3) then requires the employer to evaluate the employee's duties and environment, which this tool cannot do.
claimed_exceptionYesWhich 1904.5(b)(2) exception is claimed, if any. Use 'none' when no exception is asserted. One of: member_of_general_public, symptoms_surface_at_work_only, voluntary_wellness_or_recreation, personal_food_or_drink, personal_tasks_outside_working_hours, personal_grooming_self_medication_or_self_inflicted, commuting_motor_vehicle_on_company_lot, common_cold_or_flu, mental_illness_without_plhcp_opinion, none.
special_situationNoWhether the employee was on travel status (1904.5(b)(6)) or working at home (1904.5(b)(7)). Both are fact-heavy and resolve to requires_judgment with the governing test returned.none
aggravation_tests_metNoWhich 1904.5(b)(4) significant-aggravation tests the workplace event caused. Closed list — nothing else counts as significant aggravation. One of: death_but_for_work_event, loss_of_consciousness_but_for_work_event, days_away_restriction_or_transfer_but_for_work_event, medical_treatment_needed_or_changed.
pre_existing_conditionNoIs this a pre-existing condition — one that resulted solely from a non-work-related event outside the work environment (1904.5(b)(5))? If so it is work-related only if significantly aggravated.
exception_solely_establishedNoHas it been affirmatively established that the injury results SOLELY from the claimed exception? Every 1904.5(b)(2) exception requires this and it is a factual finding, not a lookup. Pass false when unverified — the tool will return requires_judgment rather than apply the exception.
occurred_in_work_environmentYesDid the event or exposure occur in the work environment as defined by 1904.5(b)(1) — the establishment and other locations where employees work or are present as a condition of employment, including equipment and materials used in the course of work?
mental_illness_plhcp_opinion_volunteeredNoFor a mental illness only: has the employee VOLUNTARILY given the employer a PLHCP opinion stating the illness is work-related? Under 1904.5(b)(2)(ix) a mental illness is not work-related without one.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes
valueYes
cfr_citeYes
source_urlYes
last_verifiedYes
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explains that the tool returns one of three verdicts, specifies the exact conditions that trigger requires_judgment, and includes a not-legal-advice caveat. No contradiction with annotations.

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 detailed but efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose, then the workflow ordering, verdict semantics, and handling guidance. Each sentence contributes distinct information: regulatory basis, tool sequencing, return values, requires_judgment behavior, and scope disclaimer.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters and an output schema, the description provides enough operational context for an agent to call it correctly: when to run it, what it returns, why requires_judgment appears, and how to respond to it. The output schema covers return structure, so the description does not need to restate that.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters and enums. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level detail, but it does add useful higher-level context about how the result should be used. Per the baseline for complete schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Determine whether an injury or illness is work-related.' It clearly identifies the tool's role as the gate for Part 1904 determinations and distinguishes it from the sibling tool osha_assess_recordability by instructing the agent to run this tool first.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Run this BEFORE osha_assess_recordability and pass its work_related result through.' It also tells the agent how to handle the requires_judgment verdict — 'put to the user, never as a licence to pick' — and frames the tool as 'Reference and triage only.'

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/srhtdmrkl/osha-recordkeeping-mcp'

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