Skip to main content
Glama

Tools for Agents

by io.github.max124vip-dev
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

sentiment_score

Lightweight sentiment polarity

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesInput text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / args
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Tool arguments",
-  "properties": {
-    "text": {
-      "description": "Primary input text",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / text
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Input text",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[]New value: +[
+  "text"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It only says 'Lightweight' and 'polarity' but does not disclose output format, range, or whether it handles neutral text. This is a significant transparency gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely brief, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It uses only a fragment without an active verb and omits critical information, so it does not earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least indicate the return shape (e.g., a score between -1 and 1 or a label). It does not, leaving the tool's behavior incomplete for an agent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter 'text' described as 'Input text'. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Lightweight sentiment polarity' lacks a verb and directly restates the tool's name ('sentiment_score' → 'sentiment polarity'). It fails to specify what action the tool performs or how it differs from siblings like 'text_similarity' or 'keyword_extract'.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives or contexts where this tool should be preferred, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tools for Agents toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources