Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Kadal Deck

by cc.kadal
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Who am I connected as

whoami
Read-onlyIdempotent

Report who this connection acts for: the person, the one workspace they approved (handle, plan, role), the permissions granted, and the plan's limits beside current usage. Call it first in a session — to learn the workspace handle the CLI publishes to, whether write tools will work (decks:write in permissions), and what the plan allows (storage, versions kept, private decks, live audience size, analytics); use list_decks for the decks themselves. Read-only, no arguments. If the person was removed from the workspace or it was deleted, every tool fails with a message to reconnect.

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": "whoami"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userYes
usageYes
dashboardYes
workspaceYes
permissionsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, yet the description adds real context: zero arguments, and the failure mode where a removed person or deleted workspace makes every tool fail with a reconnect message. It also explains the causal value of the call (determining whether `decks:write` is granted), which annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload contents and free of filler, but the plan limits are introduced twice ('the plan's limits beside current usage' and again as the parenthetical list of storage, versions, private decks, audience, analytics), which is mild redundancy for a no-argument tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no elaboration, and the description still supplies the preconditions, the permission-check purpose, the sibling boundary, and the catastrophic error state. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description confirms 'no arguments', which closes the loop but has nothing further to add. No syntax or value semantics are needed here.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report who this connection acts for', then enumerates the exact contents (handle, plan, role, permissions, limits vs. usage). It explicitly contrasts itself with list_decks, so an agent can separate identity/introspection from deck enumeration without reading either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

'Call it first in a session' names the timing and the reason (learn the workspace handle, check whether write tools will work via `decks:write`). It also names the alternative — 'use list_decks for the decks themselves' — so the routing decision is fully specified.

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

All Kadal Deck toolsInspect
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