rootcause-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

rc_suggest_hfacs

Classify cause descriptions into HFACS-MES levels (External Factors, Organizational Influences, Unsafe Supervision, Preconditions, Unsafe Acts) with ranked suggestions and confidence scores.

Instructions

Suggest HFACS-MES classification codes for a cause description. Returns ranked suggestions with confidence scores. HFACS-MES has 5 levels: External Factors, Organizational Influences, Unsafe Supervision, Preconditions, Unsafe Acts.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "rc_suggest_hfacs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`description`	Yes	The cause description text to classify
`domain`	No	Optional domain context for better suggestions (e.g., 'anesthesia', 'surgery', 'nursing')
`max_suggestions`	No	Maximum number of suggestions to return

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry full burden. It states the tool returns ranked suggestions with confidence scores and lists HFACS-MES levels, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or output specifics like the format of suggestions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose. It efficiently conveys the key function and context, though it could incorporate usage guidelines without adding much length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description provides high-level output info (ranked suggestions with confidence scores) and lists HFACS-MES levels. However, it does not explain confidence scoring or return structure, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Clearly states the tool suggests HFACS-MES classification codes for a cause description and returns ranked suggestions with confidence scores. The description differentiates from sibling tools which involve adding causes, links, sessions, etc.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rc_confirm_classification or rc_get_hfacs_framework. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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