noyacg-mcp

我的账号资料

noy_whoami

Read-only

Retrieves current NOY_SESSION profile details and badges, and verifies whether the session cookie is still valid without side effects.

Instructions

读取当前 NOY_SESSION 的账号资料：昵称、UID、积分、注册时间、头像，以及全部徽章 + 佩戴中的徽章。这也是最轻的会话探活方式（无副作用），怀疑 cookie 失效时先调它。

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": "noy_whoami"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds relevant context beyond them: no side effects and use as a lightweight session-liveness probe. It also discloses the return payload, including badges and the worn badge. It does not spell out authentication failure behavior, such as what happens if the cookie is missing or invalid.

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?

There are two dense sentences with front-loaded purpose and field enumeration, followed by the operational trigger. There is no redundant text.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields. It also gives usage guidance and states that the operation has no side effects, which is everything an agent needs for a zero-parameter read.

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?

It takes zero parameters; under the rubric, that sets the baseline at 4. The description correctly adds no parameter claims, so it introduces no contradictions with the empty schema.

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?

It gives a specific verb and resource (“读取当前 NOY_SESSION 的账号资料”) and lists the exact fields returned (昵称、UID、积分、注册时间、头像、徽章). It implicitly distinguishes itself from noy_signin_status by calling itself the lightest way to check whether the session is alive, but that sibling tool is never named.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear trigger: call this when the cookie may be invalid (“怀疑 cookie 失效时先调它”). It does not specify when not to use the tool or explicitly compare it with noy_signin_status, which appears to cover the same topic.

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