Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ponisha-mcp

ponisha-mcp

by Kia-Karami
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ponisha_get_me

Read-only

Fetch your own Ponisha account info—user ID, username, freelancer or employer type, plan, and profile completeness—to verify identity and check profile status.

Instructions

Get your own account: user id, username, type (freelancer/employer), plan, profile completeness.

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": "ponisha_get_me"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail of which fields are returned, but says nothing about authentication requirements or error behavior when not logged in — relevant given the sibling login/logout tools.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the returned fields after the colon. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the key return fields, which is the main thing an agent needs. It stops short of describing the full response shape or the auth precondition, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The field list is a bonus that describes the response rather than inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get your own account') and enumerates the returned fields (user id, username, type, plan, profile completeness), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like ponisha_get_profile or ponisha_session_status, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'your own account' implies the self-scoped, authenticated use case, giving implied guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of the overlapping siblings (get_profile, session_status) that would help the agent choose correctly.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools