Skip to main content
Glama
kukapay

whoami-mcp

by kukapay

WhoAmI MCP Server

A lightweight MCP server that tells you exactly who you are.

GitHub License GitHub Last Commit Python Version

Features

  • Returns the system username as your name, your identity.

  • Fast and synchronous execution, ideal for local LLM integration.

Related MCP server: whereami-mcp

Installation

Installing via Smithery

To install WhoAmI for Claude Desktop automatically via Smithery:

npx -y @smithery/cli install @kukapay/whoami-mcp --client claude
  1. Clone the Repository

    git clone https://github.com/kukapay/whoami-mcp.git
  2. Client Configuration

    {
      "mcpServers": {
        "whoami": {
          "command": "uv",
          "args": ["--directory", "path/to/whoami_mcp", "run", "main.py"]
        }
      }
    }

Usage

MCP Tool

  • Name: whoami

  • Description: Retrieves the username of the current system user as your name.

  • Output: your name.

License

This project is licensed under the MIT License. See the LICENSE file for details.

Available Tools

1 tool
whoamiB

Returns the username of the current system user as my identity.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return value ('username') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as error conditions, performance, or system dependencies. This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns but lacks details on output format or potential issues, which could be helpful for an agent. However, for such a simple tool, it meets basic needs.

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 has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, warranting a baseline score of 4.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('username of the current system user'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, since there are no sibling tools, it cannot differentiate from alternatives, which prevents a perfect score of 5.

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 description implies usage by stating it returns 'my identity,' suggesting it's for identifying the current user, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. With no sibling tools, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools, making disambiguation perfect. The tool 'whoami' has a single, clear purpose that cannot be mistaken for any other function.

Naming Consistency5/5

Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect as there are no other tools to compare against. The tool name 'whoami' is clear and follows a common Unix command pattern, which is appropriate for its purpose.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is generally too few for most server purposes, as it limits functionality and can feel thin or incomplete. While it might be appropriate for a minimal utility, it lacks the breadth typically expected in an MCP server, which often requires multiple tools for varied operations.

Completeness3/5

The tool 'whoami' covers its specific function of returning the current system user's identity, but with only one tool, the server's scope is very narrow. There are no obvious gaps for this limited purpose, but it lacks broader coverage that might be expected in a user management or system information domain.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kukapay/whoami-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server