Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
meta-mcp

meta-mcp

by mikusnuz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

meta_debug_token

Inspect an access token to validate its structure, check expiration status, review granted permissions, and identify the associated user account.

Instructions

Debug/inspect an access token to check validity, expiration, scopes and associated user.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "input_token": "<input_token>"
    },
    "name": "meta_debug_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
input_tokenYesAccess token to inspect

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool inspects token info (validity, etc.) implying it is a read operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe, nor does it mention any required permissions or edge cases.

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 a single sentence that conveys the purpose effectively. It is concise and front-loaded, though the information could be structured slightly more clearly.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and what to expect. It is likely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though details on output format are omitted.

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 schema already describes the parameter as 'Access token to inspect'. The tool description adds context by specifying what will be checked (validity, expiration, scopes, user), adding meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('debug/inspect'), the resource ('access token'), and the specific checks performed ('validity, expiration, scopes and associated user'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_exchange_token or meta_refresh_token.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage context is implied by the tool name and sibling list, but no direct guidance on when to use or not use is provided.

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