Genaya

Who am I in Genaya

whoami

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify the connected member and organization: name and role, the organization's industry, its words for client and appointment, time zone, currency and plan, the scopes this connection holds, whether actions are available on this connection (and why not when they are not: every change that is not available here is finished in Genaya, signed in), and where changes get confirmed (record changes in chat, texts and emails on a Genaya page). Free and read-only, no input. Call it once at the start of a session, then write every reply in the words, time zone and currency it returns.

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": "whoami"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	Yes
`plan`	Yes
`member`	Yes
`scopes`	Yes
`appBaseUrl`	Yes
`confirmation`	Yes
`organization`	Yes
`actionsReason`	No
`membershipRule`	Yes
`refusedClasses`	No
`actionsAvailable`	Yes
`undoWindowMinutes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description still adds real context: zero cost, no parameters, that it reports whether actions are available on this connection along with the reason when they are not, and where confirmations happen (chat, texts, emails on a Genaya page). That availability-and-fallback explanation is information the annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The lead clause is well front-loaded, but the middle is a single sprawling run-on enumerating every returned field, much of which duplicates the output schema. The final imperative about writing replies in the returned words, time zone and currency is the highest-value sentence and is buried at the end.

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 identity tool with an output schema, the description covers cost, call frequency, action-availability reporting, and how to apply the results in subsequent replies. Nothing an agent needs in order 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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description reinforces this with "no input," preventing an agent from inventing arguments. Nothing further about parameters is needed.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: "Identify the connected member and organization," then enumerates exactly what identity facets come back (name, role, industry, terminology, time zone, currency, plan, scopes). An agent can distinguish this from genaya_act or ask_genaya purely from the first clause.

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?

Gives a clear calling contract: "Call it once at the start of a session" and "Free and read-only, no input," which implies it should not be polled repeatedly. It also hints at routing — changes unavailable here are finished in Genaya, signed in — but does not name a specific sibling tool to use instead.

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

All Genaya 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?