Sally skill ($0.005/call)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Target date YYYY-MM-DD (defaults to today UTC). All other CGM data is fetched from the DB. | |
| timezone | No | IANA timezone for postprandial timing context (e.g. "America/New_York"). Defaults to 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states a cost and offers no behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, rate limits, or response characteristics. The tool remains a black box.
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 (one sentence) but severely under-specified. It does not earn its place by providing essential information; rather, it omits critical details.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description, the tool is incomplete for an agent to use effectively. The purpose is unclear, and key context about behavior and results is missing.
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% with clear descriptions for date and timezone. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 'Sally skill ($0.005/call)' is a tautology and provides no information about what the tool does. It does not mention metabolism or overview, and fails to distinguish from sibling tools like health_insights or analyze_lab_result.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any usage framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.