Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
machship-mcp

machship-mcp

by devkindhq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Identity Providers for Logged-in User

machship_get_identity_providers_for_logged_user
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all identity providers configured for the logged-in user's organization. Use it to inspect authentication or SSO options without providing any parameters.

Instructions

Returns all identity providers for the current user's organisation. No parameters required.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorsNoValidation errors returned by Machship, if any
objectNoResponse payload from the Machship API

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "errors": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "items": {},
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Validation errors returned by Machship, if any"
+    },
+    "object": {
+      "description": "Response payload from the Machship API"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds that all providers are returned and that the operation takes no parameters, but does not mention pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements.

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?

The description is front-loaded and only two sentences long. The second sentence is mildly redundant with the empty input schema, but it usefully confirms that no inputs are needed.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only getter with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely complete. Minor gaps remain around whether 'all' includes disabled providers and how the result relates to the company-scoped sibling, but these are not critical for invocation.

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, so the schema itself is complete and the baseline is 4. The description correctly reinforces that no parameters are required, though it adds no further input semantics because none exist.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns all identity providers, scoped to the current user's organisation. That scope helps distinguish it from siblings such as get_identity_providers_for_company or get_identity_providers_for_organisation, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 scope 'for the current user's organisation' implies when the tool is appropriate, and 'No parameters required' clarifies there are no prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over the company- or organisation-scoped provider siblings.

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