Sally skill ($0.004/call)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mime | No | Optional mime override (e.g. "image/png"). Auto-detected from magic bytes if absent. | |
| image_b64 | Yes | Base64-encoded food image (≤10MB raw, ≤14MB base64). |
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions a cost and "Sally skill." It does not indicate it processes images, is read-only, or what side effects occur, leaving the agent blind to critical behavior.
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?
While extremely short, the description is under-specified and lacks structure. Every sentence should add value, but this single phrase neither introduces the tool nor aids understanding.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description fails to explain return values, prerequisites, or expected outcomes. For a tool with two parameters, this is critically incomplete.
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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions (image_b64, mime) are clear and self-contained. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description only states "Sally skill ($0.004/call)", which fails to specify what the tool does. It does not mention food journaling, image analysis, or any actionable verb, making it misleading and essentially missing.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., lookup_food, analyze_lab_result). The description offers no context or alternatives, leaving the agent without any basis for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.