Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lmstelkom-mcp

lmstelkom-mcp

by bagusardin25
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the authenticated LMS user's profile and download/upload file permissions to determine which file actions are allowed.

Instructions

Menampilkan profil pengguna LMS dan izin unduh serta upload file.

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": "get_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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 the safety profile is covered externally. The description contributes extra context by stating that download and upload permissions are part of the response, which is genuinely useful behavior information. It does not, however, clarify whose profile is returned (the authenticated caller or a target user) or whether the call can fail for unauthenticated sessions despite openWorldHint=true.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence with the core information front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably slightly too terse for the permission scope it claims to return, but there is no redundant wording.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a no-argument read tool with a full annotation set and no output schema, the description covers the essentials, but it leaves two real gaps: who the profile belongs to and how the permission data is shaped. A short clause on identity scope would make it complete.

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; the baseline of 4 applies. The single sentence is consistent with the empty schema and raises no questions about 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Menampilkan' / display) with a clear resource ('profil pengguna LMS') and adds that download/upload permissions are included. The resource and intent are unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_courses or get_file_link.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the six sibling tools. The only implicit signal is that it is the entry point for user/permission information, which an agent must infer.

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