Skip to main content
Glama

Show fmsg identity

whoami
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check your fmsg identity and connection details, including address, API URL, and token expiry, to confirm who you are before sending messages.

Instructions

Report the fmsg address this server acts as (from the authenticated connection), the fmsg Web API URL (null when the server does not publish it), when the current access token expires (it is renewed automatically; no action needed), and the address-resolution defaults. Call this first if unsure who you are sending as.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes
api_urlYes
transportYes
default_domainYes
directory_namesYes
token_expires_atYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.3
    • changedOutput schema / properties / api_url / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "null"
      +]
  2. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavior beyond those: token expiration is disclosed and clarified as automatically renewed with no action needed, and the Web API URL null behavior is stated. This gives an agent confidence about side effects and required follow-up.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence lists the returned fields in a compact, structured way, and the second provides a single actionable usage cue. Every part earns its place.

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?

For a parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, nothing important is missing. The description explains the output fields, edge-case null behavior, automatic token renewal, and when to invoke the 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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool reports rather than inputs, and the empty schema needs no additional parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource: the fmsg identity/address for the authenticated connection. It enumerates the exact data returned, which distinguishes it from the sibling message-oriented tools even without naming one.

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 says 'Call this first if unsure who you are sending as,' giving a clear condition for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not cases, but the self/identity scope makes the usage context obvious among message-operation siblings.

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