Sally skill ($0.008/call)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pdf_b64 | Yes | Base64-encoded PDF or image (≤10MB raw, ≤14MB base64). | |
| filename | No | Optional hint for mime detection (e.g. "panel.pdf"). Defaults to "document.pdf". | |
| llm_model | No | Override OpenRouter model id used for interpretation. Defaults to LAB_READING_MODEL on the OCR side. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description only mentions a cost. Does not disclose that the tool processes base64-encoded PDFs, performs OCR, or interprets lab results. No behavioral traits beyond what's implied by the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but at the expense of clarity. The description is a single short phrase that fails to convey the tool's purpose. Conciseness without meaningful content is under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, and complex functionality. Description does not mention return values, error handling, or processing steps. Incomplete for a tool that analyzes lab results from uploaded files.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% as each parameter has a description. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the schema already provides sufficient parameter documentation. Baseline score maintained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description only says 'Sally skill ($0.008/call)', which does not indicate what the tool does (e.g., analyze lab results from PDFs). Title is null, so no additional context. Sibling tools like 'chat_with_sally' are not differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Missing any context about suitable scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.