Skip to main content
Glama

smart_fridge___nutrition

Tracks household food inventory, expiry risks and replenishment needs; considers user food restrictions and preferences; prepares transparent product recommendations, a draft Silpo basket and delivery options. Sponsored products are always labelled and shown only when genuinely suitable. Cart changes require explicit user approval. Expected Runtime: ~15s.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payloadYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description conveys several key behaviors: sponsored products are always labelled and only shown when genuinely suitable, cart changes require explicit user approval, and an expected runtime of ~15s. These operational details exceed what is minimally expected.

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 concise: three clear sentences plus a runtime note. The main purpose is front-loaded, and constraints (sponsored products, cart approval) are succinctly listed without unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the core functions and constraints well, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it lacks explicit input expectations and usage guidance, making it incomplete for a complex multi-step tool.

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?

The schema has a single required 'query' field with an empty description (0% coverage). The tool description implies the query is a food-related request by context, but it never explicitly explains what the query parameter should contain, leaving some ambiguity.

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 functions: tracking inventory, considering restrictions, and preparing recommendations. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling agents like silpo_home_restaurant, though it is a composite of several actions rather than a single verb-resource statement.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no conditions for selection, exclusions, or mentions of sibling agents, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap in purpose, particularly the research/analysis agents (constructivecritic, firstprinciplesanalyst, scientificresearchagent, researchagent) and the three reasoningdelegation agents, which differ only by effort level. Some tools like 'exploitagent' and 'testagent' have vague descriptions that don't clarify distinct roles. However, many tools are clearly distinct (e.g., campbuddy vs. smart_fridge___nutrition), and the core router tools (discover_agents, a2a_call_agent, wait_for_task) are well-defined.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: some tools use snake_case (a2a_call_agent, discover_agents, wait_for_task) while most others are camelCase or concatenated lowercase (browsernavigationagent, campbuddy, reasoningdelegationhigh). There's also odd naming like 'smart_fridge___nutrition' with triple underscore, and simple names like 'testagent' and 'exploitagent'. No consistent convention exists across the set.

Tool Count4/5

With 24 tools, this is near the upper limit but still reasonable for an agent router that hosts many pre-defined specialized agents. The core router functions (discover, call, wait) are supplemented by a diverse set of agent tools. It's borderline heavy but each tool represents a distinct agent or action, so it's acceptable.

Completeness4/5

The router functionality is well-covered: discovery (discover_agents), synchronous calling (a2a_call_agent), asynchronous handling (wait_for_task), and skill lookup (search_skills/get_skill) for extension. Missing are explicit cancellation or task management tools, but core workflows are supported. The presence of domain-specific agents (campbuddy, silpo_home_restaurant) doesn't detract from router completeness.

Resources