Skip to main content
Glama
upamune
by upamune

human_nose_tool

Detect odors and scents using human olfactory senses to identify food freshness, gas leaks, or evaluate aromas through human assistance.

Instructions

人間が鼻を使って匂いを確認します。

例:
- 食べ物の新鮮さの確認
- ガス漏れなどの危険な匂いの検知
- 香りの評価

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
instructionYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler implementation for the 'human_nose_tool'. It is registered via @mcp.tool() decorator. The function takes an instruction, creates a database task for human to perform the smelling action, asynchronously waits for completion, and returns the result.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def human_nose_tool(instruction: str, ctx: Context) -> Dict[str, str]:
        """人間が鼻を使って匂いを確認します。
    
        例:
        - 食べ物の新鮮さの確認
        - ガス漏れなどの危険な匂いの検知
        - 香りの評価
        """
        task_id = str(uuid.uuid4())
        formatted_instruction = f"👃 鼻を使って嗅覚確認: {instruction}"
    
        # タスクをデータベースに追加
        db_utils.add_task(task_id, formatted_instruction)
    
        # ログ出力
        sys.stderr.write(f"Human task created: {task_id}. Waiting for completion...\n")
    
        # 結果を待機(非同期ポーリング)
        result = await wait_for_task_completion(task_id)
    
        # ログ出力
        sys.stderr.write(f"Human task {task_id} completed.\n")
    
        return {"smell": result}
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action (checking smells) but fails to describe key traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions or prerequisites are needed (e.g., human availability), potential limitations (e.g., accuracy, time constraints), or the expected output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-point examples. Each sentence earns its place by illustrating use cases, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating guidelines from examples). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 the tool's complexity (involving human sensory input), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and examples but misses critical details: behavioral traits, parameter explanations, and output expectations. For a tool that relies on human interaction, more context is needed to ensure proper agent usage.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain the 'instruction' parameter at all. While the examples hint at possible uses, they don't add semantic meaning beyond what's implied, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves the parameter's purpose and format unclear.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '人間が鼻を使って匂いを確認します' (a human uses their nose to check smells). It specifies the verb (check/confirm smells) and resource (human nose), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like human_taste_tool or human_mouth_tool, which might also involve sensory evaluation, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides implied usage through examples (e.g., checking food freshness, detecting gas leaks, evaluating scents), which suggests contexts for application. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., human_taste_tool for taste-related tasks) or any exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/upamune/human-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server