Skip to main content
Glama
srhtdmrkl

osha-recordkeeping-mcp

by srhtdmrkl

Evaluate Occupational Hearing Loss (29 CFR 1904.10)

osha_evaluate_hearing_loss
Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate audiogram data against OSHA 1904.10 to determine recordable hearing loss, comparing current and baseline thresholds at 2k, 3k, 4k Hz, and applying STS, 25 dB, retest, age-adjustment, and PLHCP rules.

Instructions

Compute whether an audiogram produces a recordable hearing loss. Two tests must BOTH be met and, critically, in the SAME ear: a Standard Threshold Shift of 10 dB or more averaged at 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hz against the employee's baseline (1904.10(b)(1)), and a total hearing level of 25 dB or more above audiometric zero on the current audiogram (1904.10(a)). An STS in one ear and a 25 dB level in the other does not record. Pass raw audiogram values and the tool does the arithmetic — do not compute averages yourself. If the employee has had a prior recordable hearing loss, pass the REVISED baseline (b)(2)(i)). Age adjustment from Tables F-1/F-2 of 1910.95 appendix F applies to the STS test only, never to the 25 dB test (b)(3)). A retest within 30 days that does not confirm the STS defeats the case; one that confirms it starts a 7-day recording clock (b)(4)). A PLHCP determination of no work-relatedness ends it entirely (b)(6)). Reference and triage only — not legal advice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
retest_dateNoISO 8601 date of a confirming retest. Used to compute the 7-calendar-day recording deadline (1904.10(b)(4)).
current_leftYesLEFT ear current audiogram.
baseline_leftYesLEFT ear baseline audiogram. If the employee has previously had a recordable hearing loss, use the REVISED baseline reflecting that case, not the original (1904.10(b)(2)(i)).
current_rightYesRIGHT ear current audiogram.
baseline_rightYesRIGHT ear baseline audiogram, or the revised baseline if a prior hearing loss was recorded.
retest_confirmed_stsNoIf retested, did the retest CONFIRM the recordable STS? A retest within 30 days that does not confirm it means the case need not be recorded.
age_adjustment_db_leftNoOptional dB age correction for the LEFT ear, derived from Tables F-1/F-2 of 29 CFR 1910.95 appendix F. Applies ONLY to the STS test — it may NOT be applied to the 25 dB total-hearing-level test (1904.10(b)(3)). The tool does not compute this; supply it from the tables or leave 0.
age_adjustment_db_rightNoOptional dB age correction for the RIGHT ear. Same rules as the left.
retested_within_30_daysNoWas the employee's hearing retested within 30 days of the first test? (1904.10(b)(4))
plhcp_determined_not_work_relatedNoHas a PLHCP determined, applying 1904.5, that the hearing loss is not work-related or that occupational noise did not significantly aggravate it? If so the case need not be recorded (1904.10(b)(6)).

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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: the two tests must be met in the same ear, age adjustment applies only to the STS test, retest rules (30-day window, confirmation vs. non-confirmation), and the PLHCP determination ending the case. It also warns that the tool does arithmetic and the user must supply age adjustments. This rich disclosure goes well beyond the annotations and precisely explains the decision logic.

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?

Though long, every sentence carries unique regulatory detail. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the subsequent sentences each clarify a distinct condition or exception. The structure uses parentheses for references and enumerations, making it scannable. There is no redundancy or filler; the length is justified for the regulatory complexity.

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?

With 10 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema present, the description covers all essential behavioral aspects: the two decision tests, same-ear requirement, age adjustment scope, retest logic, PLHCP override, and usage constraints. It also includes a disclaimer about legal advice. The output schema handles return values, so that gap is not an issue. For a complex OSHA evaluation tool, this description is thoroughly complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying relationships: it explains the same-ear condition, that baseline values should be the revised baseline when applicable, and that age adjustments are for STS only. It instructs the agent to pass raw values and not precompute averages, and clarifies the interplay between retest flags and the PLHCP flag. This adds semantic depth that the schema alone does not provide.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Compute whether an audiogram produces a recordable hearing loss.' It also specifies the regulatory basis (29 CFR 1904.10) and the two tests, making it unmistakable from sibling tools that handle other OSHA recordkeeping aspects. The purpose is specific, actionable, and distinguishes this tool from the broader osha_assess_recordability and similar siblings.

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?

The description gives clear context and instructions: 'Pass raw audiogram values and the tool does the arithmetic — do not compute averages yourself,' and explains when to pass a revised baseline. It also disclaims 'Reference and triage only — not legal advice.' However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for work-relatedness determination, use osha_assess_work_relatedness). Since the domain is specific, the exclusion is implicit but not explicit, so a 4 is appropriate.

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