Get Current User
get_meRetrieve the authenticated user's profile information.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
client-compass
by com.numbru
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only retrieval operation (no side effects). However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not specify any behavioral details such as required permissions or data freshness.
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 sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 simple no-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers what it does. It does not detail the return format, but that is acceptable given the simplicity.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so no parameter semantics are needed. The description adds no extra parameter information, but the baseline for no parameters is 4.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves the authenticated user's profile information, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_person' (which likely retrieves other users) and 'update_profile'.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use, but the description implies it is for the current user's profile. No mention of alternatives among siblings.
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.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes (create, retrieve, chat). However, generate_compass overlaps with the automatic compass generation in create_person and batch_create_persons, potentially causing confusion about when to use it separately.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_person, get_chat_messages, update_profile). The naming is predictable and clear, with no mixing of conventions.
Tool Count5/5
11 tools is appropriate for a client management system with profile, chat, and compass features. The scope is well-defined and each tool serves a clear function without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness3/5
The tool set supports create, read, and search operations for people, but lacks update and delete functionality. Also, there is no explicit tool to update a client's compass after creation, and chat management is limited to send and retrieve without edit/delete.