GotCashback

My profile

get_my_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the signed-in user's GotCashback profile (name, email, avatar). Use it when the user asks who they are signed in as or wants their account details. Requires OAuth sign-in with a GotCashback account; anonymous callers are prompted to authorize. All comparison tools work without signing in. Scope: 'profile'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`profile`	No	The signed-in user's GotCashback account profile.

Schema Changelog

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

Changed1 schema field changedSep 6, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "The signed-in user's GotCashback profile.",
+  "properties": {
+    "profile": {
+      "description": "The signed-in user's GotCashback account profile.",
+      "properties": {
+        "avatar": {
+          "description": "URL of the user's profile picture. Null/absent when they have none.",
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "email": {
+          "description": "The account's email address — where alert notifications are sent.",
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "first_name": {
+          "description": "The name the user registered with. Null/absent when they never set one.",
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "user_id": {
+          "description": "GotCashback's numeric identifier for the account. Informational — no tool takes it as a parameter.",
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the OAuth requirement and the behavior for anonymous callers ('anonymous callers are prompted to authorize'). It also mentions the 'profile' scope, adding meaningful behavioral context not present in the structured annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: the result, the use case, the auth behavior, and a contrast with comparison tools. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations cover safety/idempotency, the description fills all remaining gaps: auth requirement, scope, and when to invoke. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed; the mention of OAuth scope and auth requirement is the only extra context, which is not parameter-related.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the signed-in user's GotCashback profile (name, email, avatar).' It also names the exact triggering user requests, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like get_my_alerts or get_my_favorite_stores.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it when the user asks who they are signed in as or wants their account details.' It also provides a relevant exclusion by noting 'All comparison tools work without signing in,' which guides agents toward alternatives in anonymous contexts.

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

All GotCashback tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a clearly distinct resource and action, and the descriptions carefully cross-reference when to use each one. The main risk is the similar get_stores_by_name, get_cashback_rates_by_store_name, and get_gift_cards_by_store_name names, though their descriptions do a good job of separating identity, cashback rates, and gift cards.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming follows a mostly consistent get_<resource>_by_<selector> pattern with clear verb prefixes for mutations like set, remove, and toggle. Minor inconsistencies exist, such as get_portal_by_id (singular) versus get_portals_by_name (plural), and the get_my_* cluster for account tools.

Tool Count4/5

Eighteen tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but the count is justified by the breadth of the domain: store comparison, brand and category deals, gift cards, portals, countries, and user account features. Each tool has a distinct purpose, so the set does not feel genuinely bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the main workflows well: finding cashback by store, brand, or category, comparing gift cards and portls, browsing countries and stores, and managing favorites, alrts, and profile. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to rank all stores in a country by cashback rate without per-store lookups, but agents can work around these.

Resources

Need Help?