Paperform

Profile

profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the signed-in person this connection acts for: { id, name?, email?, nickname? }. id is the same stable opaque account id whoami returns; nickname is the Paperform team this connection belongs to, to tell two connected Paperform profiles apart. Needs a signed-in Paperform account: a guest gets a sign-in request instead, and should use whoami for its sandbox and claim code. For spaces and permissions, call whoami.

Example: profile() → { "id": "pfu_0f3a…", "name": "Sam Lee", "email": "sam@example.com", "nickname": "Acme" }

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": "profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	No
`email`	No
`nickname`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the tool requires a signed-in Paperform account, and an unauthenticated guest receives a sign-in request rather than data. It also explains that id is a stable opaque account id shared with whoami and that nickname identifies the team, which lets an agent interpret the response.

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 purpose and account requirement, then the sibling routing, then an example. Slightly redundant in that the field shape in braces is restated in the example, but overall dense and purposeful with no filler sentences.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the remaining gap an agent would care about—authentication requirement and the guest fallback—is explicitly covered. Nothing needed 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 there is nothing parameter-level to explain; baseline is 4. The description does spend words on the return fields, which is schema-adjacent rather than parameter semantics.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Return the signed-in person this connection acts for') and immediately names the distinguishing field set. It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling whoami by scope (identity vs spaces/permissions).

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 names the alternative explicitly ('For spaces and permissions, call whoami') and gives a concrete routing rule for the failure path: a guest should use whoami for its sandbox and claim code. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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

All Paperform tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?