Skip to main content
Glama

sally_roast

Read-only

Get a brutally honest code review with a 0–10 score, evidence-backed issues, and actionable fixes. Choose a quick roast or a deep dive with ranked issues.

Instructions

Get a brutally honest code review from Cynical Sally — a 0–10 score, real issues backed by evidence, and fixes you can actually use. Use this whenever the user wants code reviewed, critiqued, roasted, or asks 'what does Sally think'. Pass paths (files or directories Sally reads herself, skipping binaries and secrets) OR files with inline content. quick = a fast, sharp take (90 free per month per device); full_truth = a deep dive with ranked issues and actionable fixes. Sends the selected code to the Cynical Sally backend for analysis — never stored, never used for training; set preview to true to see exactly what would be sent without sending anything. Read-only: never modifies files. Returns markdown with the score, verdict, top issues, and fixes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathsNoFile or directory paths to review. Sally reads them locally (skips binaries, oversized files, and common secret files). Prefer this over `files` so you don't have to read and pass content yourself.
filesNoCode files with inline content (alternative to `paths`)
modeNoquick = fast roast; full_truth = deep dive with ranked issues + actionable fixes (1 free per month, then Full Suite)quick
langNoISO 639-1 language code for Sally's response (e.g. 'en', 'nl'). Defaults to English.en
toneNoSally's delivery: cynical (default, full sass), neutral, or professional — same findings, different wording.cynical
previewNoDry run: return exactly what WOULD be sent (file list, byte sizes, token estimates, SHA-256 hashes, and which files were skipped and why) and send NOTHING to the backend. Use this when the user wants to verify what leaves their machine before roasting.
shareNoPublish a public share card and include the link — the card shows only the score and Sally's one-liner, never code. Only use when the user explicitly asks to share the roast.
Behavior5/5

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

Description states 'Read-only: never modifies files', 'never stored, never used for training', and explains preview mode for verifying what is sent. Perfectly aligns with readOnlyHint:true and openWorldHint:true annotations.

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?

Well structured with purpose up front, then input options, mode, privacy, and preview info. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose; could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity.

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?

Fully covers all aspects of a complex 7-parameter tool without output schema: purpose, input methods, modes, privacy, security (preview), sharing, and return format (markdown). No gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by recommending paths over files, explaining mode differences, preview functionality, and share option. Provides practical guidance beyond schema definitions.

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?

The description clearly states it provides a 'brutally honest code review' with a 0-10 score, issues, and fixes. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on roasting and reviewing code, with specific verbs like 'review', 'critique', 'roast'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says to use when user wants code reviewed, critiqued, roasted, or asks what Sally thinks. Differentiates between paths vs files inputs and quick vs full_truth modes. Does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings.

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/w1ckedxt/cynical-sally'

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