Skip to main content
Glama
using76
by using76

bulc_generate_rset_report

Destructive

Generate RSET analysis reports from evacuation simulations to evaluate building egress safety and compliance with fire safety standards.

Instructions

Generate RSET (Required Safe Egress Time) analysis report from evacuation simulation results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outputPathNoOutput directory for report. Default: same as results
languageNoReport language: 'EN', 'KO', 'JP', 'CN'. Default: EN
includeAgentDetailsNoInclude per-agent exit times. Default: true

Implementation Reference

  • Handler implementation in handleEvacTool switch: validates input with GenerateRsetReportSchema and sends 'generate_rset_report' command to BULC client.
    case "bulc_generate_rset_report": {
      const validated = GenerateRsetReportSchema.parse(args);
      result = await client.sendCommand({
        action: "generate_rset_report",
        params: validated,
      });
      break;
    }
  • Zod schema for input validation matching the tool's inputSchema.
    const GenerateRsetReportSchema = z.object({
      outputPath: z.string().optional(),
      language: z.enum(["EN", "KO", "JP", "CN"]).optional(),
      includeAgentDetails: z.boolean().optional(),
    });
  • Tool registration in evacTools array: defines name, description, inputSchema for MCP protocol.
    {
      name: "bulc_generate_rset_report",
      description:
        "Generate RSET (Required Safe Egress Time) analysis report " +
        "from evacuation simulation results.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object" as const,
        properties: {
          outputPath: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Output directory for report. Default: same as results",
          },
          language: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Report language: 'EN', 'KO', 'JP', 'CN'. Default: EN",
            enum: ["EN", "KO", "JP", "CN"],
          },
          includeAgentDetails: {
            type: "boolean",
            description: "Include per-agent exit times. Default: true",
          },
        },
      },
      annotations: {
        readOnlyHint: false,
        destructiveHint: true,
      },
    },
  • src/index.ts:140-147 (registration)
    Top-level dispatch in main tool handler: routes 'bulc_generate_rset_report' to handleEvacTool.
      name === "bulc_set_agent_properties" ||
      name === "bulc_generate_rset_report" ||
      name === "bulc_save_evac_result" ||
      name === "bulc_set_exit_assignment" ||
      name === "bulc_set_premovement_time" ||
      name === "bulc_set_fire_coupling"
    ) {
      return await handleEvacTool(name, safeArgs);
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate this is a destructive operation (destructiveHint: true) and not read-only (readOnlyHint: false). The description doesn't contradict these annotations, and it adds context by specifying it generates a report 'from evacuation simulation results', implying it processes existing data. However, it doesn't elaborate on what gets destroyed, whether it overwrites existing files, or any rate limits or authentication requirements beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Generate RSET analysis report') and includes the essential context ('from evacuation simulation results'). Every element earns its place in this compact description.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and destructive annotations, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It specifies what's being generated (RSET report) and the data source (evacuation simulation results), which is essential. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the report format or content, and it lacks guidance on when this tool fits in the workflow relative to other tools like 'bulc_get_evac_result' or 'bulc_generate_report'.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all three parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions (output directory, language options, agent details inclusion). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete, but doesn't provide extra value like explaining why these parameters matter for RSET reports.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'RSET analysis report', specifying it's created 'from evacuation simulation results'. This distinguishes it from generic report generation tools like 'bulc_generate_report' by focusing on RSET analysis specifically. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other analysis tools like 'bulc_run_aset_analysis' beyond the RSET focus.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing evacuation results first), doesn't specify when this should be used instead of other report generation or analysis tools, and offers no context about typical workflow sequencing. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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/using76/BULC_MCP'

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