Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fooddb

fooddb

Official
by eait-fit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

review_queue

Lists values withheld by failed checks, grouped per source record, alongside the values currently served.

Instructions

Values a failed check held back, grouped per source record, next to the values served now.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "review_queue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It vaguely implies a read/report operation by mentioning held-back values grouped per source record, but does not disclose read/write safety, permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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 single sentence is short and not verbose, but it is cryptic and under-specified rather than front-loaded with actionable information. Its brevity does not earn its place because it fails to communicate the tool's purpose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need less description, but the description still omits purpose, usage guidance, and parameter meaning. For a tool with no annotations and a 0%-documented parameter, this leaves the agent without enough context to confidently select or invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has one parameter, limit, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention limit or explain its meaning, range, or impact, so it adds no parameter semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 does not state a clear verb or action for the tool. It describes some data relationship ('failed check held back... next to values served now') but never says what review_queue actually does, so an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like decide_review or health_report.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description gives no indication of when this tool should be selected over other review-related sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools