scan_receiptExtract precious metals purchase data from a receipt image using AI vision
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | TroyStack API key (required) | |
| image_base64 | Yes | Base64-encoded receipt image (JPEG) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states what the tool does ('extract...using AI vision') without disclosing whether it has side effects, the return format, or any limitations. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with the key verb and object front-loaded. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary details or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent. It does not specify what the tool returns, error behavior, or whether it creates a holding. This leaves critical information missing for a 2-param tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on api_key or image_base64 format constraints).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Extract') and identifies the resource ('precious metals purchase data' from a receipt image). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_holding or get_portfolio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the use case: when you have a receipt image containing precious metals purchase data. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: portfolio management (add_holding, get_portfolio, get_analytics), market data (get_spot_prices, get_price_history, get_vault_watch), market intelligence (get_daily_brief, get_stack_signal), calculations (get_junk_silver, get_speculation), and AI interaction (chat_with_troy). Even the multiple get_* tools are well-separated by their specific outputs.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern. Most use the verb 'get_' for data retrieval, while 'add_holding', 'chat_with_troy', and 'scan_receipt' use other verbs but still match the same structural convention, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for its stated purpose of precious metals portfolio management and market analysis. Each tool earns its place, covering data retrieval, calculations, and AI assistance without being bloated.
The server covers portfolio creation (add_holding) and reading (get_portfolio, get_analytics) but lacks update or delete operations for holdings. This means users cannot correct errors or record sales, which is a notable gap in the lifecycle for a portfolio management tool.