Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Server for Visma Intempus

MCP Server for Visma Intempus

by borgels
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Who Am I (Intempus)

intempus_whoami
Read-onlyIdempotent

Reveals the Intempus employee and approver levels bound to the current session, identifying which user the authentication is scoped to.

Instructions

Show this endpoint's profile and the Intempus employee (and approver levels) the session is bound to.

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": "intempus_whoami"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the result is tied to the current session binding and includes approver levels, but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior when unauthenticated, or response shape.

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 compact sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'Show' and the payload. The only waste is the slightly confusing 'this endpoint's profile' construction, which costs a word of clarity rather than length.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool there is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back; it lists profile, employee and approver levels, which is a reasonable sketch but not complete (no mention of structure, IDs, or what the 'endpoint profile' contains).

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because there is nothing to add.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a recognizable resource (the session's profile / bound Intempus employee and approver levels), but the phrasing 'this endpoint's profile' is odd and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling intempus_get_my_profile, which appears to retrieve overlapping identity information.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no exclusions are given. With intempus_get_my_profile in the sibling list, the agent is left to guess which identity tool to call; the description should say why you would call whoami instead of get_my_profile.

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