Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Workvivo MCP

Workvivo MCP

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Read your own Workvivo account

workvivo_get_me
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the signed-in Workvivo user's profile details—name, email, job title, department, location, cost centre, hire date, timezone, and roles—to confirm identity and org placement. Read-only.

Instructions

Read who you are signed in to Workvivo as: name, email, job title, department, location, cost centre, hire date, timezone and roles. Read-only.

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": "workvivo_get_me"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewNoResponse shape: "compact" (default) drops fields the response already carries elsewhere; "full" returns every field this server understands. compact (default) keeps your identity, role and org placement (the raw record is ~80 KB of org settings); "full" returns Workvivo's record as sent (credential-shaped fields such as meeting passcodes are redacted on every view).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the trailing "Read-only." adds nothing. The field enumeration is useful because there is no output schema, but the description says nothing about the view parameter's effect, response size, or redaction, all of which live only in the schema.

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 front-loaded sentence carrying the identity and field scope, followed by a two-word safety tag. The tag is redundant with annotations, but the whole definition is tight with no wasted 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?

Because there is no output schema, the explicit field list is the right thing for the description to carry. What's missing is how the optional view parameter changes the result, which matters for an agent deciding whether to call it plainly or ask for full detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has one optional parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and that schema entry already explains compact versus full and the redaction behavior. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Read who you are signed in to Workvivo as") and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling workvivo_get_person, though the 'your own account' framing makes the distinction inferable.

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 'who you are signed in as' framing implies the use case, namely identifying the current caller, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no direct pointer to workvivo_get_person for reading other people's profiles. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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