Viktor is an AI employee that lives in Slack and Microsoft Teams and connects to 9,800+ tools. This remote MCP server lets Claude, Cursor, Codex or any MCP client hand tasks to your Viktor and get the results back. Auth: Viktor API key (Authorization: Bearer or x-api-key header). Docs: https://viktor.com/docs/mcp-server?utm_source=glama&utm_medium=directory
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlapping purpose. The tool targets a single, clearly defined action (caller identity introspection).
`whoami` is a single, conventional, lowercase name that is instantly recognizable, but it does not follow a verb_noun pattern, so there is no repeatable convention to verify. Minor deviation only.
A one-tool surface is thin even for a narrow identity/introspection server; it falls in the borderline 1-2 tool range. The single tool does earn its place, but the set feels minimal.
For the stated purpose of identifying an API key, the tool is self-contained, but there are no companion operations (e.g. inspecting granted tool capabilities, refreshing or validating scope grants beyond type/scopes/limits). Notable but non-blocking gaps.
Identify the calling API key: type, granted scopes, and active rate limits. Useful to validate a key or discover which tools are usable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by naming the returned data (key type, scopes, rate limits) and implying identity is derived from the caller's credential rather than a parameter. It does not mention what happens with an invalid/expired key, which is the one behavioral gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, both earning their place: the first defines the output, the second defines the use case. Front-loaded with the core identification behavior and no redundant restatement of the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is identified and which fields come back. Annotations carry the safety profile, so nothing material is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly conveys that identity comes from the calling credential implicitly, consistent with an empty input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Identify') and resource ('the calling API key') and enumerates exactly what is returned: key type, granted scopes, and active rate limits. An agent knows precisely what this tool produces without opening anything else; no sibling differentiation is needed since there are none.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The second sentence gives concrete use cases — validating a key and discovering which tools are usable — which is real when-to-use guidance rather than an implied purpose. It stops short of stating exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. that a credential must already be configured), so it is clear context without full routing rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
whoami
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.