Skip to main content
Glama

独行录 / opcmenu

by io.github.yzlee

设置我的身份

set_persona
Idempotent

【需要登录】设置当前用户的身份 / 来意 persona。可选：GENERAL_PUBLIC（随便看看）/ FOUNDER（发布项目）/ INVESTOR（投资）/ MEDIA（观察趋势）/ RECRUITER（招聘）/ SERVICE_BUYER（买服务）/ PARTNER（谈合作）/ OTHER（其它，需填 personaOther）。

【多重身份】可同时是多个身份（如 主理人+投资人）：persona 是主身份，personas 传全部身份。注意：这是整组替换——不传 personas 会把用户已设的多重身份收缩成单身份，改之前先用 get_my_profile 看现状。

【创业者分叉】persona=FOUNDER 时可顺带传 creatorType（创造者类型），驱动默认产品分类与后续填写提示；非创业者忽略。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
personaYes
personasNo全部身份（多重身份，自动含主身份并去重）；不传 = 收缩为仅主身份
creatorTypeNo创造者类型（persona=FOUNDER 时建议带上），取值：INDIE_DEV（独立开发者） | AI_BUILDER（AI 应用 / Agent 开发者） | GAME_DEV（独立游戏开发者） | CREATOR（自媒体 / 创作者） | DESIGNER（独立设计师 / 插画师） | RESEARCHER（独立研究者 / 民间高手） | CONSULTANT（独立咨询 / 自由专家） | PHOTOGRAPHER（独立摄影 / 写真 / 跟妆） | BRAND_MAKER（独立品牌 / 手作 / 主理人） | HARDWARE（独立硬件 / 机器人） | OTHER（其他创造者）
personaOtherNopersona=OTHER 时必填的自定义身份

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the replacement semantics (整组替换), warns that omitting personas collapses multiple identities to a single one, and clarifies the conditional creatorType behavior. This is valuable context about side effects that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

The description is compact, organized into three labeled sections, and front-loads the core purpose and the most important replacement warning. No sentence is wasted.

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 conditional 4-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers login requirements, option meanings, multi-identity semantics, the risky edge case, and conditional field guidance. An agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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?

The description adds Chinese meanings to enum values, explains that personas automatically includes and dedupes the primary persona, and explains when personaOther and creatorType are needed. However, it omits PRODUCT_BUYER and BROWSER from its option list even though the schema includes them, leaving a small completeness gap.

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 a specific action and resource: setting the current user's identity/intent persona, and enumerates the meaningful option values. This differentiates set_persona from sibling profile/preference setters by naming the unique persona concept.

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?

It provides practical conditions: login is required, creatorType is only relevant for FOUNDER, and it explicitly tells the agent to call get_my_profile first to avoid shrinking existing multi-identity settings. It stops short of naming alternative setter tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

All 独行录 / opcmenu toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a clearly documented purpose, often with explicit 'when to use' guidance and cross-references, making the vast majority easy to tell apart. A few clusters (get_my_brief, get_my_positioning, get_my_work, get_my_dispatch) and data-overlapping get_my_card vs get_my_profile require careful reading, but descriptions are detailed enough to prevent serious misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow snake_case verb_noun conventions (create_product, update_need, list_my_signups). Minor deviations include noun-only feed names (personalized_feed, random_feed), inconsistency between 'prefs' and 'preferences' in notification tools, and a mix of update_* and set_* for mutations, but the pattern remains predictable overall.

Tool Count1/5

137 tools is an extreme mismatch for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for a score of 1. Even with a broad multi-domain platform, this volume makes tool selection and navigation impractical and heavily burdens the agent's context window.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers full lifecycles for needs, products, activities/signups, conversations, collaboration goals/tasks, dispatch, profile/onboarding, and supporting resources like companies, parks, policies, and ratings. Deliberate omissions (no user-post creation, no organizer profile editing via agent) are explicitly documented, so core workflows have no obvious dead ends.

Resources