spawnpoint

Who am I

whoami

Read-onlyIdempotent

Report which spawnpoint account this session is authenticated as: the account email, the team it deploys to and the user's role there (when the agent was signed in for a team; the plan and counts are then the team's), the team's ai_models when the team approves models (its apps may call only those through spawnpoint), the plan (Free, Pro, or Business), whether the plan is a paid subscription or a complimentary comp, how many projects are active, how many always-on apps (set_always_on) the plan keeps against its limit, counted across every app the plan covers, and plugin_version, the newest spawnpoint plugin, with plugin_note on comparing it with the skills you loaded. Use it when the user asks whose account is connected or what plan they are on, or before offering to keep an app always on. Billing is a monthly subscription, not a prepaid balance; there is no balance to report, and users manage billing in the console.

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plan`	Yes
`team`	No
`email`	Yes
`read_only`	No
`plugin_note`	No
`subscription`	Yes
`always_on_used`	Yes
`plugin_version`	No
`active_projects`	Yes
`always_on_limit`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 13, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / read_only
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedNov 9, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / team / properties / ai_models

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": [
+    "null",
+    "array"
+  ]
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 18, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / plugin_note
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description is not required to cover safety. It adds meaningful context beyond annotations: billing is a monthly subscription, not a prepaid balance; there is no balance to report; users manage billing in the console; team-scoped plan and counts; plugin_version comparison guidance. These are useful behavioral details, though the dense delivery reduces clarity.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single extremely long run-on sentence packed with parentheticals and clauses before reaching the usage guidance. It is not front-loaded for scanning and violates conciseness. While the information is relevant, the structure makes it hard to parse quickly.

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?

Given zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. It covers purpose, usage contexts, and behavioral caveats. It over-explains return fields already documented by the output schema, but nothing essential 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema description coverage is 100% and there are no parameters to explain. The description does not need to add parameter semantics and appropriately does not try.

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 opening clause states a specific verb and resource: report which spawnpoint account the session is authenticated as. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools about projects, deployments, and infrastructure. However, the purpose is buried under a long enumeration of returned fields, which blurs the core action.

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?

The description gives explicit usage contexts: when the user asks whose account is connected, what plan they are on, or before offering to keep an app always on. This ties directly to the sibling tool set_always_on. It does not state when not to use the tool, but the positive guidance is clear.

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

All spawnpoint 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.