Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@ola/buzz-mcp

@ola/buzz-mcp

Official
by ola-krutrim
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

buzz_profile_set

Idempotent

Update your Buzz profile details—display name, bio, or avatar URL—while preserving existing fields. Use in agent mode only; other modes reject profile changes.

Instructions

Set your own profile (kind 0): any of name (display name, ≤64 chars), about (≤500 chars), picture (an https:// image URL; empty string clears it). PATCH-style: other profile fields are kept. Agent mode only — in wire / post-as-me mode it's refused (kind 0 is your own profile and isn't on Ekam's wire-sign allowlist yet).

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": "buzz_profile_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNodisplay name (≤64 chars, no control/bidi/invisible characters)
aboutNobio (≤500 chars; newlines ok)
dry_runNopreview only: resolve everything and show the exact event that would be signed (auth tags redacted) — nothing is signed, uploaded or sent
pictureNohttps:// avatar URL (empty string clears)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.36

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing PATCH-style merge semantics (other profile fields are kept) and a mode-level refusal condition — neither is inferable from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint. It also tells the agent that an empty string clears the picture. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and what a no-argument call does, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the field list, then the merge semantics, then the mode gate — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense with parentheticals and jargon ('kind 0', 'wire-sign allowlist') but each clause carries real information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero required parameters, the description covers what gets changed, what is preserved, how to clear a field, and when the call is refused, which is the core an agent needs. It leaves gaps on return behavior and on the purpose of the schema-documented dry_run preview.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, yet the description still adds meaning: it restates the real runtime limits (name ≤64, about ≤500) which are far tighter than the schema's maxLength of 400/2000, and it defines the empty-string clearing behavior for picture. These are semantics an agent would get wrong by trusting the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set your own profile (kind 0)') and enumerates the writable fields, so the agent knows this is a self-profile mutation, not a read. It scopes to 'your own' profile, separating it from channel/agent tools, but never mentions the overlapping sibling buzz_setname or how it differs.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not: refused in wire / post-as-me mode because kind 0 is not on the wire-sign allowlist, which is a hard precondition the agent must check before calling. It does not route the agent between this tool and buzz_setname or tell it to use buzz_profile to read current values first.

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