whoami
Identify the calling Eodly API key: the organization it belongs to and the scopes it holds.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
eodly-mcp
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No information about side effects, permissions, or read-only nature is disclosed. The description only states what it identifies, not what happens during execution or what might be required.
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 description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the core function without extra fluff. However, the presence of unclear terms ('Ealling Eodly') slightly detracts from overall effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description should clearly state the purpose and expected outcome. It mentions identifying organization and scopes, but the unclear wording and lack of context about the calling entity or return format make it incomplete.
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?
With zero parameters in the schema, there is nothing to add for parameter semantics. The baseline is 4, and the description does not introduce any irrelevant parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description attempts to state the tool's purpose ('Identify the... API key'), but the phrase 'Ealling Eodly' is unclear and likely a typo for 'calling entity', reducing clarity about what exactly is identified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_report' or 'list_team'. It does not mention typical scenarios or conditions for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: retrieving a single report, listing reports, listing the team roster, and identifying the API key. No overlap in functionality or ambiguity in selection.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_report, list_reports, list_team) except whoami, which is a single verb command. This is a minor deviation but standard and recognizable, so consistency is high.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools is well-scoped for a read-only EOD report and team management server. Each tool provides a necessary, non-redundant function without bloat.
Completeness5/5
The server covers the full read surface for its domain: listing reports, retrieving report details, listing team members, and authenticating the API key. No obvious missing operations for a read-only reports/team API.