Skip to main content
Glama

独行录 / opcmenu

读我的兴趣偏好

get_my_preferences
Read-onlyIdempotent

【需要登录】返回当前用户设置的兴趣标签(影响推荐流排序;用于回显,改前先读)。

【别搞混三套 preferences】要改推送开关用 get_notification_prefs / set_notification_prefs;要改「想认识谁 / 别给我推谁」的破冰匹配偏好用 list_my_match_preferences / set_my_match_preference。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the login requirement and the effect on recommendation sorting, which are not in annotations and provide valuable behavioral context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and usage context, the second provides essential disambiguation from related tools. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple, parameterless getter, the description covers login requirement, what is returned, the effect, and the recommended usage pattern. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly without ambiguity.

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 in the schema, so nothing to clarify. The description implicitly indicates it operates on the current user, which is sufficient. Baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero parameters.

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 clearly states the tool returns the current user's interest tags and explains their effect on recommendation sorting. It distinguishes itself from other preference tools by explicitly naming the alternatives, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly says to use this tool for reading interest tags and warns against confusing it with other preference sets, naming the exact alternative tools for each case. It also advises to read before modifying, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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.

Resources