Skip to main content
Glama

Jock Taxes for Claude

Get profile

get_profile
Read-only

Return the profile represented by this request's authenticated credentials. The opaque id is unique within this app and remains unchanged across token refresh, reconnection, and display-metadata changes.

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": "get_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, non-destructive, closed-world call, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the id is opaque, unique within the app, and stable across token refresh, reconnection, and display-metadata changes. It doesn't mention failure behavior when credentials are missing or unauthenticated, which would be the remaining gap.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first states the operation, the second front-loads the identity-stability guarantee. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

For a zero-argument identity tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent most needs: where the profile comes from and what the id means. It stops short of characterizing the returned profile fields or the unauthenticated case, which would make it fully self-contained.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly reinforces that identity is taken from the credentials rather than from arguments.

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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Return the profile represented by this request's authenticated credentials'), which is immediately understandable. Sibling tools are all tax/salary/player-domain utilities, so no explicit differentiation is needed, but the description also doesn't say so.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: because it reads 'this request's authenticated credentials' and takes no parameters, an agent can infer it is the identity lookup to call with no input. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it or what it does not cover (e.g., other users' profiles).

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources