Sally skill ($0.003/call)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Local date YYYY-MM-DD. Default: today in `timezone`. | |
| type | No | Which insight to generate. 'auto' resolves from current local hour: 05:00-11:59 morning, 12:00-17:59 afternoon, else evening (00:00-04:59 rolls back to evening). | auto |
| language | No | BCP-47 short code (e.g. 'en'). Default: 'en'. | |
| timezone | No | IANA tz (e.g. 'Asia/Jakarta'). Default: UTC. | UTC |
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 and a minimal description, there is no disclosure of behavioral traits such as data access, side effects, or limitations. The description adds no value beyond the schema.
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?
The description is extremely short but omits essential information about the tool's purpose. It is under-specified rather than concise.
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 lack of output schema and minimal description, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what insights are generated, what the tool returns, or how it relates to sibling tools.
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% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 'Sally skill ($0.003/call)' does not state what the tool does; it is missing and misleading, providing only a cost and a vague skill reference, not a specific verb or resource.
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 on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., analyze_lab_result, chat_with_sally). The description lacks any context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.