Super Artifacts

Who am I publishing as

super_whoami

Read-only

Who this key publishes as: the workspace handle, email, agent name and scope (the artifacts it may change: its own, and those it is named Editor on), plus liveRooms where live rooms run (the limit and who holds one). Useful to confirm where a publish lands, or why an artifact answers not_found; no other tool needs it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "super_whoami"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, closed-world safety. The description adds real value beyond that: it defines what `scope` means (artifacts it may change, including Editor-named ones) and frames the tool as a diagnostic for `not_found` responses.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single dense sentence plus a short usage clause; the returned fields are front-loaded before the rationale. Heavy parentheticals but every one carries meaning (scope definition, liveRooms limit/holder).

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return contents — and it enumerates handle, email, agent, scope and liveRooms with brief semantics. Adequate for a zero-param introspection tool, though shapes of `scope`/`liveRooms` remain loose.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The description instead documents the response fields, which is the relevant semantics for a no-arg tool.

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?

States precisely what is returned: the publishing identity (handle, email, agent name, scope, liveRooms). A specific resource with enumerated return fields, though the verb is implicit ("Who this key publishes as") and sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases: confirming where a publish lands and diagnosing why an artifact answers `not_found`. Also notes no other tool depends on it. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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

All Super Artifacts tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?