Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Comunicate.top

by top.comunicate
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Cine sunt

whoami
Read-onlyIdempotent

Organizația din spatele cheii, permisiunile ei și dacă asistenții AI pot comanda și publica.

Use when you need to know which organisation the key belongs to, its permissions, or whether AI assistants may order. Do not use without an API key or OAuth connection.

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopesNoarray of string. Permissions of the key.
aiPublishingNoboolean. Whether AI assistants may place paid orders.
organizationNoobject {id, name}. The organisation the key belongs to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "aiPublishing": {
+      "description": "boolean. Whether AI assistants may place paid orders."
+    },
+    "organization": {
+      "description": "object {id, name}. The organisation the key belongs to."
+    },
+    "scopes": {
+      "description": "array of string. Permissions of the key."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behaviour, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the authentication prerequisite (API key or OAuth connection). It also signals the semantic payload (permissions and ordering/publishing eligibility), though it does not say what happens on a missing or expired credential.

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 same content is stated twice: once as a Romanian fragment and again as an English paragraph re-expressing the identical facts. The English version is well front-loaded with usage and the exclusion last, but the duplication is pure redundancy that no agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema documenting the return shape, the description covers purpose, trigger and the auth precondition — close to complete. The remaining gap is only that failure behaviour on bad credentials is unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The only parameter-like information an agent needs — that credentials are supplied out-of-band — is covered.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence names a concrete resource set — the organisation behind the key, its permissions, and whether AI assistants may order/publish — which is far more specific than a tautology on 'whoami'. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings (e.g. get_balance, get_own_publication), but the identity/permission framing is distinctive enough for an agent to place it.

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 gives an explicit trigger ('Use when you need to know which organisation the key belongs to, its permissions, or whether AI assistants may order') plus a negative condition ('Do not use without an API key or OAuth connection'). What is missing is any named alternative for the permission-adjacent questions handled by get_balance or get_own_publication.

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

All Comunicate.top 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