Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
saas-alerts-mcp

saas-alerts-mcp

by am3cramirez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

saas_alerts_partner_get_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the partner profile linked to your authenticated API key to view account details and settings.

Instructions

Get the partner profile associated with the authenticated API key.

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": "saas_alerts_partner_get_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the profile is associated with the authenticated API key, which is useful scoping context. However, it does not disclose return format, potential errors, or any other behavioral nuances beyond what annotations 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, strong annotations), the description fully covers what the tool does and its auth-based scope. The profile itself is the implied return value, and the annotations handle safety/behavior. No significant gaps remain.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4; the description adds no parameter information because none is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('partner profile') and scope ('associated with the authenticated API key'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'saas_alerts_partner_update_branding' (update vs get) and 'saas_alerts_users_list_partner' (partner profile vs user list).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternatives or conditions like 'use this to fetch the current partner's profile' or 'versus listing partners.' Simple tools can imply usage, but no such context is given.

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