Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Neotoma

Neotoma

by markmhendrickson
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_session_identity

Check a session's current trust tier, client info, anonymous-write policy, and trusted-write eligibility as a safe preflight health check without modifying any data.

Instructions

Resolve the current session's attribution: trust tier, AAuth / clientInfo fields, active anonymous-write policy, and whether the session is eligible for trusted writes. Safe to call as a preflight health check; does not write any rows.

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": "get_session_identity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.15.0
  2. Removedv0.14.0
  3. Addedv0.12.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool does not write any rows, which is good. However, it lacks details on potential performance impact, authentication requirements, or any rate limits that might affect usage.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes critical usage guidance. Every word contributes value without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately lists the key fields returned (trust tier, AAuth/clientInfo, anonymous-write policy, write eligibility) and clarifies safety. This is complete for a simple, zero-parameter introspection tool.

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 no parameters, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Per the guideline, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool resolves the current session's attribution details including trust tier, AAuth/clientInfo fields, and write eligibility. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_authenticated_user by focusing on session identity rather than just user info.

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?

The description explicitly states it is safe to call as a preflight health check and does not write any rows, which guides when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention scenarios to avoid or alternative tools for related queries.

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