Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Connections

by icu.connections
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Who am I - registration + company binding

connections_whoami
Read-only

WHICH ACCOUNT AND WHICH WORKSPACE THIS CONNECTION IS ON. Call it the moment the member wonders about either - 'am I in the wrong account?', 'which account is this?', 'wrong workspace?' - and read the reply's say line back: it names the signed-in account the way a person would recognise it (their name, and their email when the sign-in granted it). Also returns the registration (workspace folder or connector-level), the machine label, the workspace this connection starts in (company) - or an explicit company:null when it has none - with workspaceSay, the line to read back (it says whether that is the member's preferred workspace), the assignment source (auto = the member's default workspace when it connected, the normal case | agent-switch = the member moved it, or it followed their preferred workspace | studio | agent-claim | unassigned), and active status. Wrong WORKSPACE is fixed by connections_switch_workspace; wrong ACCOUNT by connections_signout. connections_pulse includes this answer; call this one alone when you only need the workspace. Read-only, cheap, no side effects.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
personNoLinked person to run this call as (first name). Omit to run as the connection's holder.
projectNoWorkspace to run this call in (id or name).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / person
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Linked person to run this call as (first name). Omit to run as the connection's holder.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / project
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Workspace to run this call in (id or name).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorld false; the description adds that it is cheap and side-effect-free, and describes the return payload in detail: the `say` line, registration type, machine label, `company` including explicit null handling, `workspaceSay`, assignment-source values, and active status.

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 and trigger are front-loaded, and every clause carries information about return values or routing. It is dense and somewhat long, with mild repetition of the read-only/no-side-effects claim already covered by annotations, but it is not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values; it does so thoroughly by naming each returned field and its meaning. Combined with the named alternatives for remediation, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the `person` and `project` parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for these parameters, leaving the baseline score appropriate.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: which account and workspace a connection is on, plus registration, machine label, and company binding. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming connections_switch_workspace, connections_signout, and connections_pulse.

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?

Names concrete triggers ('am I in the wrong account?', 'wrong workspace?') and tells the agent exactly what to do: read the reply's `say` line back. It also routes the agent: wrong workspace is fixed by connections_switch_workspace, wrong account by connections_signout, and connections_pulse includes this answer.

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

All Connections toolsInspect
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