Skip to main content
Glama

~Alter Identity

by com.truealter

Login Status

alter_login_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether the credential you are holding is still good. Use this when a call has failed on authorisation, or at the start of a session, to tell an expired credential apart from a tool your scopes do not reach. Returns whether you are authenticated, whether you are acting as a member or an agent, the scopes and tier the credential carries, its expiry, the authentication method behind it, and an opaque prefix identifying the key without revealing it. Takes no parameters. Listed free at L0; calling it needs a credential, which is the thing it reports on.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description is consistent with them. It goes well beyond the annotations by enumerating exactly what the call reports (authentication state, member vs. agent role, scopes, tier, expiry, auth method, opaque key prefix) and by disclosing that it requires a credential despite being free at L0.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and every subsequent clause carries distinct value: the usage scenario, the returned fields, the parameter status, and the access note. It is slightly long, but the density is justifiable for a tool with no output schema to lean on.

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-only status tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It covers purpose, invocation context, return-value constituents, and the credential requirement; there is no functional gap an agent would need filled before calling it.

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 per the rubric. The description confirms 'Takes no parameters' and adds meaning by explaining that the credential itself is implicitly the subject of the report, which is useful context the empty schema cannot convey.

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: 'Check whether the credential you are holding is still good.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling auth tools by framing its job as authentication-status validation and explicitly contrasting it with diagnosing scope failures, so an agent can pick it apart from alter_verify and alter_whoami without opening any schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when a call has failed on authorisation, or at the start of a session.' It also explains the diagnostic contrast it resolves (expired vs. unscoped), which captures the when-not implicitly. It does not name an alternative tool by name, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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

All ~Alter Identity toolsInspect
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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct purposes: auth status, presence, handle resolution, identity verification, reference data, registration, and onboarding. A few pairs overlap somewhat—alter_resolve_handle vs alter_verify, and alter_login_status vs hello_agent—but the descriptions provide enough distinction to avoid major misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is readable but inconsistent: some tools use an alter_ prefix, while others use bare verbs, noun phrases like golden_thread_status, or greetings like hello_agent. The pattern is mixed rather than chaotic, but there is no unified verb_noun convention across the server.

Tool Count4/5

Sixteen tools is slightly above the ideal well-scoped range and the toolset could be trimmed by merging related reference and registration tools. Still, each tool has a distinct enough role that the count does not feel bloated.

Completeness3/5

Core flows are covered: registration, credential checking, handle resolution, verification, network stats, reference vocabularies, and the Golden Thread program. However, descriptions reference capabilities like query_field and verify_identity that are not exposed as tools, and there is no profile update or identity management surface, leaving notable gaps.

Resources