Skip to main content
Glama
farena-ai

Sara

by farena-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Ask Sara

ask_sara

Send Sara a conversational message and receive her reply using her memory and personality, so you can ask questions, get opinions, or continue a chat.

Instructions

Send Sara a message and get her reply, as in a chat: she answers with her memory and personality in a conversation kept for this app, which the owner can read in Sara. Use it for questions, opinions or anything conversational; to store a fact on purpose use remember_fact, and to change the planner use the to-do and note tools. Returns her reply as plain text (with the AI notice when a new session starts). If her own tools are allowed for other apps and one needs the owner's OK, it returns a note that it is waiting for approval in Sara. Can take up to a few minutes; one key can have two replies running at once.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesWhat to say to her, in plain words. Up to 20,000 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / message / description
      Previous value: -"What to say to her."New value: +"What to say to her, in plain words. Up to 20,000 characters."
    • addedInput schema / properties / message / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "What did we decide about the garden fence?"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / message / maxLength
      Added value: +20000
    • addedInput schema / properties / message / minLength
      Added value: +1
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds what annotations cannot: the conversation is persisted and owner-readable ('which the owner can read in Sara'), the reply is plain text, an AI notice appears on new sessions, an approval-pending note is returned, and calls can take minutes with up to two concurrent replies per key. The only gap is that 'her own tools are allowed for other apps' sits slightly against openWorldHint=false, though it describes a returned note rather than direct external interaction, so it is not a hard contradiction.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by routing, then behavioral caveats. It is dense but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information; the approval-flow sentence is slightly convoluted but still earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description still explains the return value (plain text reply, AI notice, approval-pending note) and sets latency/concurrency expectations. For a one-parameter conversational tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter already carries a description, examples, and length bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds 'in plain words', which does not meaningfully extend the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Send Sara a message and get her reply, as in a chat') and immediately differentiates from siblings by naming remember_fact and the to-do/note tools. An agent can tell it is the free-form conversational entry point without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit routing: use for 'questions, opinions or anything conversational', use remember_fact to deliberately store a fact, use the to-do/note tools to change the planner. This gives both when-to-use and named alternatives, leaving nothing to inference.

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